John wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:37:22 -0500, Bob <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:17:42 -0500, Bob <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110791,00.html
>>>>
>>>>Coffee, tea... or inappropriate wacko, cultist, fundamentalist, Taliban-like, smug, close-
>>>>minded, no-prob, self-satisfaction?
>>>>
>>>>Bob
>>>
>>>Bob, this one is really funny. I can see how it'd be really scary to be on a flight where the
>>>flight crew is Christian. Hey, what if the Rapture happened during the flight? You'd really be in
>>>trouble (unless, of course, you get Raptured too.)
>>
>>Poor "John" seems not to have noticed that it wasn't "the flight crew" that acted erratically.
>>
>>You know, "John," lots of people don't accept that the rapture is how it will be. But thank you
>>for identifying yourself.
>
> Actually, Bob, it means that I watched 60 Minutes on CBS Sunday evening where one of the segments
> was on the "Left Behind" series of books. Interesting that they indicated that something like 80
> million Americans describe themselves as "Evangelical Christians" to whom the story in these books
> resonates. Now you've gone and insulted them all.
<LOL> Oh, look. "John" is doing that victim thing again. Point out that not everybody agrees with
poor, shallow "John" and he MUST interpret it as an attack on Christianity, All Christians, Jesus,
The Mount of Olives, the fishnet that caught the fishes he fed the multitudes with and don't forget
the bread. Even insulted all bakers who bake bread.
> Collateral damage, I guess.
Hey, "John." You're supposed to deliver a girly line like that with a deep <sigh> and anguish
written across your aristocratic features. Otherwise, it falls as flat as the mountains of
your wisdom.
> As for me, I donno about the theology in those books.
Sure you do, "John." Just more evasion from a simple issue.
> I'm also pretty sure that the pastor of my church enjoyed reading them
"John." A flash. They're novels.
> but didn't exactly subscribe to the theology expressed therein.
They aren't textbooks, they're somebody's opinion.
But, hey, "John." This is diversionary ********. The number of people who hold an opinion isn't the
determinant of how good it is.
>>>You do realize, of course, that these people using their cell phones in flight not only broke the
>>>law but possibly endangered the flight?
>>
>>"John," I truly thank you for this demonstration of your inabilities and handicaps. Note that in
>>the article, everybody but the wacko pilot
>
> Everybody? No, I don't think so. These days there are always people who get overwrought
> about things.
Sure. The whole flight crew and the passengers. You weren't there. You had only the article to base
your reply on and here you are making up extra **** so you can "win" the silly debate you think
you're having. The pilot is a wacko like you. That's what this is about.
> Did you see the story about the mother trying to buy a flight simulator program for her 10 year
> old son at a Staples store? The clerk thought there was something fishy about a 10 year old being
> interested about flying and called the FBI. Sheesh!
I bet that kid wants to grow up to be a wacko pilot who can scare the **** out of his co-workers and
his passengers. That's why you mention this, right "John?"
Oh, wait. You're trying to extrapolate that the passengers were wrong and the pilot was doing the
right thing because he remained calm in the face of the passengers trying to use their cell phones.
"John," I must say this looks curiously like your excusing Chung and Mu for the most vile behavior
while holding Stephen to *your* account because he disagrees with you. Looks like anybody who thinks
like you is good and anybody else is wrong. Good, "John."
> [quote from artical deleted]
Hey, "John." How come you deleted the part where the pilot called non-Christians "crazy." And the
part where the flight crew felt the need to contact the ground and tell them what was going on? Did
the crew overreact too?
>>Poor "John." Can't seem to realize that the real subject is wacko extremism and bizarre
>>radicality. On the plane and here.
>
> Poor ****
Good, "John." Very good. More proof about who "John" is. The quotes around your name, "John,"
signify an anonymous poster who may or may not be somebody named "John." Don't know. What I do know
is that you're a lightweight in your thinking, in your logic, in your knowledge and in your
understanding of the bible. And your ethics. Most particularly your ethics.
> doesn't understand enough about aviation and avionics
You know, Shithead "John," you don't know what I know or don't about aviation and avionics and you
don't know what experience I might have and you don't know what licenses and qualifications I carry.
And it's exactly that leap from nothing to nowhere that marks your normally shallow diatribes. You
talk **** from total ignorance and you keep on doing it irrespective of what information you're
given. The true mark of a shut-minded fanatic.
> equipment to realize the true issue that peoples' intolerant
Intolerant? Like your reactions to Stephen's difference of view? That kind of intolerant? Or some
different kind? Maybe the kind that says that the wacko pilot's behavior was completely
inappropriate and, by that criterion, frightening. Intolerant of the message being delivered by some
crank of a guy whose job is to fly a plane and safeguard the people aboard.
Maybe intolerant like the wacko pilot who said that everybody who doesn't believe like he does is
"crazy?" His kind of intolerant?
> reactions to a misperceived "threat"
The only way to judge whether it was misperceived or not is to wait to see the end. The passengers
had no way of knowing whether the pilot who was saying provocative and disturbed things while in
control of the plane wasn't some fundamentalist crank who would take them all in. He acted like any
other fanatic. Fanatics have recently been demonstrating how committed they are to their insanities.
And how willing they are to kill themselves and others.
> were what caused the real hazard.
"John," if you were on that plane and the pilot came on and said that all non-muslims were crazy,
would you have a momentary twinge of distress? You'd have an out-of-pants moment, you would. Brave
"John" who won't say who he is.
Now you invent a hazard not in evidence. With both right and left seat filled, they'd know if there
was a electronic hazard and could deal with it quickly enough. You keep forgiving the pilot and
blaming the passengers. Won't wash, "John." Weak. And it gives you an excuse to forgive yourself
when you're prattling these extremist mantras.
Bob
