Des Small

Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Des Small
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
    > >
    > > > In article <[email protected]>, Des Small
    > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Go Fig <[email protected]> writes:
    > > > >
    > > > > > In article <[email protected]>, Martin
    > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > The charter is not included fully in
    > > > > > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.
    > > > >
    > > > > What wasn't voted on?
    > > >
    > > > Specific rules for acceptable content.
    > >
    > > When you said "this", you were relying on the many telepaths to know
    > > you meant that?
    >
    > Did you happen to see what was DIRECTLY above my text line, what do you
    > think I was referencing... good grief.

It said and says:
"""
The charter is not included fully in
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
"""


When you said "Except, this was never voted on so has no standing",
which of these things did you mean to claim was not voted on?

1) The charter (which _was_ in fact voted on)
2) The FAQ
3) The inclusion of the full charter in the FAQ

    > > The charter _was_ voted on, after all.

The! charter! Was! Voted! On! in accordance with the ancient
traditions of Usenet.

[...]

    > > > It is a Charter, but one that is very vague in regards to acceptable
    > > > posting guidelines. ISPs covered by U.S. law have little ability to
    > > > enforce text content in this group as those would be arbitrary and not
    > > > voted on.
    > >
    > > As opposed to the many froups where writs are routinely served for
    > > off-topic postings, of course.
    >
    > Have you ever looked at headers included in many Usenet ISPs, they may
    > included 'to report abuse'. ISPs must have legal standing to restrict
    > access....

"Legal standing"?

    > "all aspects" and "this includes" is incredibly encompassing
    > language. Courts need language that specifies what is NOT included.
    > > You're weird.
    >
    > Your woefully ignorant here.

I'm woefully ignorant of many things in many places. You could help
by giving

1) an example of a charter for a Usenet group which meets your
demanding standards, and
2) a reference to a court case based on it.

Oh, and <magda>you're</magda>.

Des

Martin

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 05:20:53 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Martin
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:09:33 +1000, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:16:17 +0200, "Runge"
    >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>read the purpose of the group again
    >> >
    >> >Oh?
    >> >
    >> >Enlighten me with a link or a quote.
    >>
    >> The charter is not included fully in
    >> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq/
    >Except, this was never voted on so has no standing.

If it's not there what's the difference?
--
Martin

Mxsmanic

Go Fig writes:

    > Having seen the video, these were no "stewardess'" they were highly
    > trained professionals to get 297 people off that inferno alive.

That is the entire purpose of flight attendants.

Mxsmanic

Donna Evleth writes:

    > I wholeheartedly agree with you. These highly trained professionals are so
    > often not given the credit they deserve. I'm sure they had to deal with
    > some panic, and of course a terrifically dangerous situation. The early
    > reports, based on the sight of the flaming plane, all indicated major loss
    > of life. It didn't happen. These are the kind of cabin staff I want on my
    > next flight.

As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
again.

Dave Smith

Mxsmanic wrote:

    > As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
    > ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
    > here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
    > the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
    > loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
    > can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
    > odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
    > again.

Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I would
ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault. There are
usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less, a crash
makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues and
insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today. There are a
few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to believe that
none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.

EvelynVogtGamble

Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
    > Runge wrote:
    >
    >> Appalling troll
    > As well as being a terrible non sequitur.

Commenting on Runge's statement, not Mike's: ;-)

If THAT'S not a case of the pot calling the kettle black,
what is? (Why do people keep replying to the odious Grunge?)

Martin

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:52 -0400, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
    >> ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
    >> here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
    >> the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
    >> loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
    >> can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
    >> odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
    >> again.
    >Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I would
    >ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault. There are
    >usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less, a crash
    >makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues and
    >insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today. There are a
    >few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to believe that
    >none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.

I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
thunderstorm and screw it up.

--
Martin

EvelynVogtGamble

Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Donna Evleth writes:
    >
    >
    >>I wholeheartedly agree with you. These highly trained professionals are so
    >>often not given the credit they deserve. I'm sure they had to deal with
    >>some panic, and of course a terrifically dangerous situation. The early
    >>reports, based on the sight of the flaming plane, all indicated major loss
    >>of life. It didn't happen. These are the kind of cabin staff I want on my
    >>next flight.
    >
    >
    > As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
    > ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
    > here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
    > the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
    > loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
    > can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
    > odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
    > again.

I understand what you're saying, but I'd just as soon NOT
merely "walk away, alive" from my flight, thank you very
much! (I don't "fear" flying, because I figure I've lived a
long and healthy life already, and dying in an air
disaster is usually quick - simply being alive is dangerous,
and we all have to die sometime.)

Martin

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:45:18 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:

    >Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> > I wholeheartedly agree with you. These highly trained professionals are so
    >> > often not given the credit they deserve. I'm sure they had to deal with
    >> > some panic, and of course a terrifically dangerous situation. The early
    >> > reports, based on the sight of the flaming plane, all indicated major loss
    >> > of life. It didn't happen. These are the kind of cabin staff I want on my
    >> > next flight.
    >>
    >> As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
    >> ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
    >> here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
    >> the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
    >> loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
    >> can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
    >> odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
    >> again.
    >Oh, strange, you don't pretend any more that AF pilots drink alcohol
    >during flight?

and that Airbus make junk?
--
Martin

Stanislas de Kertanguy

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > I wholeheartedly agree with you. These highly trained professionals are so
    > > often not given the credit they deserve. I'm sure they had to deal with
    > > some panic, and of course a terrifically dangerous situation. The early
    > > reports, based on the sight of the flaming plane, all indicated major loss
    > > of life. It didn't happen. These are the kind of cabin staff I want on my
    > > next flight.
    >
    > As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
    > ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
    > here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
    > the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
    > loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
    > can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
    > odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
    > again.

Oh, strange, you don't pretend any more that AF pilots drink alcohol
during flight?


--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me

Stanislas de Kertanguy

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    > >Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I
    > >would ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their
    > >fault. There are usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash.
    > >Never the less, a crash makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be
    > >scrambling over legal issues and insurance rates. He is sure as hell not
    > >going to be smiling today. There are a few dozen people in the hospital
    > >with injuries. Do you expect me to believe that none of them will have
    > >fear of flying again? Get serious.
    >
    > I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
    > thunderstorm and screw it up.

1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me

Martin

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:45:30 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:

    >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I
    >> >would ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their
    >> >fault. There are usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash.
    >> >Never the less, a crash makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be
    >> >scrambling over legal issues and insurance rates. He is sure as hell not
    >> >going to be smiling today. There are a few dozen people in the hospital
    >> >with injuries. Do you expect me to believe that none of them will have
    >> >fear of flying again? Get serious.
    >>
    >> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
    >> thunderstorm and screw it up.
    >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?

Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
ATC.

    >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.

Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.
In a similar storm at Munich Airport in a Lufthansa jet the pilot
backed off and we circled waiting for the storm to pass over,
eventually we were diverted to Stuttgart to refuel.
--
Martin

Martin

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 08:31:14 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> Donna Evleth writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I wholeheartedly agree with you. These highly trained professionals are so
    >>>often not given the credit they deserve. I'm sure they had to deal with
    >>>some panic, and of course a terrifically dangerous situation. The early
    >>>reports, based on the sight of the flaming plane, all indicated major loss
    >>>of life. It didn't happen. These are the kind of cabin staff I want on my
    >>>next flight.
    >>
    >>
    >> As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
    >> ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
    >> here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
    >> the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
    >> loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
    >> can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
    >> odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
    >> again.
    >I understand what you're saying, but I'd just as soon NOT
    >merely "walk away, alive" from my flight, thank you very
    >much! (I don't "fear" flying, because I figure I've lived a
    > long and healthy life already, and dying in an air
    >disaster is usually quick - simply being alive is dangerous,
    >and we all have to die sometime.)

There are better ways to go than falling 10 miles or being burnt
alive.
--
Martin

Stanislas de Kertanguy

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    > >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
    >
    > Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
    > ATC.

Good! so it's not a "company policy".

    > >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
    >
    > Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
    > of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.

That's *your* experience, innit? Come on, AF, just like LH, BA, etc...
is among the most serious airlines in the world. You can't seriously
pretend they jeopardize passenger safety.

--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me

Martin

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:57:24 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:

    >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
    >>
    >> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
    >> ATC.
    >Good! so it's not a "company policy".

Who said it was? I assume the pilot is recruited and employed by AF.

    >> >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
    >>
    >> Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
    >> of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.
    >That's *your* experience, innit?

I shared it with the rest of the passengers.

    >Come on, AF, just like LH, BA, etc...
    >is among the most serious airlines in the world. You can't seriously
    >pretend they jeopardize passenger safety.

Yesterday they did.

Why did he land in a thunderstorm? Microbursts , wind sheer, aqua
planing whilst landing in thunderstorms are no secret.

Who do you want to blame?
--
Martin