Dr. Andrew B. Chung airlines

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Bob, Feb 10, 2004.

  1. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Tags:


  2. John

    John Guest

    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.)

    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
     
  3. Bob

    Bob Guest

    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.

    > 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 was apprehensive and the remainder of the airplane crew felt
    the need top report his bizarre behavior. Not about Christianity at all, lightweight-"John." It's
    about behavior so out of the appropriate realm as to be frightening. The fundamentalist zealot PILOT
    created the sense of endangerment on that flight with his behavior.

    Here's a bit from the article: "Passenger Amanda Nelligan told WCBS-TV of New York that the pilot
    called non-Christians "crazy" and that his comments "felt like a threat." She said she and several
    others aboard were so worried they tried to call relatives on their cell phones before flight
    attendants assured them they were safe and that people on the ground had been notified about the
    pilot's comments."

    Pilot called non-Christians "crazy."

    Poor "John." Can't seem to realize that the real subject is wacko extremism and bizarre radicality.
    On the plane and here.

    Bob
     
  4. John

    John Guest

    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. Collateral damage, I guess. As for me, I donno
    about the theology in those books. I'm also pretty sure that the pastor of my church enjoyed reading
    them but didn't exactly subscribe to the theology expressed therein.

    >> 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. 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!

    [quote from artical deleted]

    >Poor "John." Can't seem to realize that the real subject is wacko extremism and bizarre radicality.
    >On the plane and here.

    Poor Boob doesn't understand enough about aviation and avionics equipment to realize the true issue
    that peoples' intolerant reactions to a misperceived "threat" were what caused the real hazard.

    John
     
  5. Bob

    Bob Guest

    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 bullshit. 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 crap 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 crap 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 Boob

    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 crap 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
     
Loading...