Unruly Passengers

[SelwayKid]

How would you handle a situation where a paying passenger began to
manhandle the controls?
What would you do if a passenger keeps interrupting you during a
single pilot IFR approach into a very busy airport?
What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
back of a twin?
What would you do if the passenger was so big they kept getting in the
way of control travel?
What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
while in flight?
These are all real and all have happened to me in my 45 years of
flying. A lot more that I can't think of at the moment.
A pilot was recently faced with it when an 84 year old man decided to
unstrap and get out of the front cockpit of a biplane and plunged to
his death. The pilot was unable to stop him.
What would you do?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
m...
>
> How would you handle a situation where a paying passenger began to
> manhandle the controls?
>

Briskly apply my Mag-Lite to the bridge of his nose.


>
> What would you do if a passenger keeps interrupting you during a
> single pilot IFR approach into a very busy airport?
>

Tell him to shut up. If he persists, I'd briskly apply my Mag-Lite to the
bridge of his nose.


>
> What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> back of a twin?
>

I'd inform them smoking is not allowed aboard my aircraft.


>
> What would you do if the passenger was so big they kept getting in the
> way of control travel?
>

Cease the pre-start checks.


>
> What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
> while in flight?
>

Tell him it's a bad idea.

[Peter R.]

Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

> > What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> > back of a twin?
> >
>
> I'd inform them smoking is not allowed aboard my aircraft.

What, no Mag-Lite to the bridge of the nose? That would work, too.


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
>
> > > What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> > > back of a twin?
> > >
> >
> > I'd inform them smoking is not allowed aboard my aircraft.
>
> What, no Mag-Lite to the bridge of the nose? That would work, too.
>
And he wouldn't cold-cock the guy trying to get out of the plane? Steven is
slipping.

[G.R. Patterson III]

SelwayKid wrote:
>
> How would you handle a situation where a paying passenger began to
> manhandle the controls?

I'd try telling him to quit it. If that didn't work, I'd probably brain him with the
fire extinguisher.

> What would you do if a passenger keeps interrupting you during a
> single pilot IFR approach into a very busy airport?

Hit the "pilot isolate" button on the intercom.

> What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> back of a twin?

Notify the authorities to pick them up at the nearest airport and land there.

> What would you do if the passenger was so big they kept getting in the
> way of control travel?

Since control travel checks are part of my runup procedures, we would never leave the
ground.

> What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
> while in flight?

About all I can think of to try is to put the plane in the steepest left bank I can
hold while maintaining control. In my plane, that's going to make it extremely
difficult for him to get out. Then it's nothing but left turns and slips until I
flare for landing.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Peter R." wrote:
>
> Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
>
> > > What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> > > back of a twin?
> > >
> >
> > I'd inform them smoking is not allowed aboard my aircraft.
>
> What, no Mag-Lite to the bridge of the nose? That would work, too.

They might drop the joint.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[C J Campbell]

"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
m...
> How would you handle a situation where a paying passenger began to
> manhandle the controls?

Karate chop to the throat.

> What would you do if a passenger keeps interrupting you during a
> single pilot IFR approach into a very busy airport?

Tune him out, either with pilot isolate or just ignoring him.

> What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> back of a twin?

Ask for some.

Actually, I would land immediately. My plane has no ash trays and smoking is
strictly prohibited by the POH. I would also consider that the plane has had
its value permanently reduced to some extent -- drug sniffing dogs will
alert on the plane for years -- and I would demand compensation.

> What would you do if the passenger was so big they kept getting in the
> way of control travel?

That would be determined when computing the weight and balance and during
the before takeoff control check.

> What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
> while in flight?

Depends on where he was sitting and whether I felt I could do anything about
it.

> These are all real and all have happened to me in my 45 years of
> flying. A lot more that I can't think of at the moment.
> A pilot was recently faced with it when an 84 year old man decided to
> unstrap and get out of the front cockpit of a biplane and plunged to
> his death. The pilot was unable to stop him.
> What would you do?

He was 88. If you are unable to stop him, then you are unable to stop him.
File a dropped object report.

[C J Campbell]

My bad. Forgot to look at the date of this troll.

My solution to all the above problems would be to shoot the passenger. If he
had drugs or cash, I would steal them.

[Peter R.]

G.R. Patterson III ) wrote:

> "Peter R." wrote:
> >
> > Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
> >
> > > > What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> > > > back of a twin?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd inform them smoking is not allowed aboard my aircraft.
> >
> > What, no Mag-Lite to the bridge of the nose? That would work, too.
>
> They might drop the joint.

Oooh, good point.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
>
> > > What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> > > back of a twin?
> > >
> >
> > I'd inform them smoking is not allowed aboard my aircraft.
>
> What, no Mag-Lite to the bridge of the nose? That would work, too.
>


Yeah, I was kinda expecting that to be the solution to all the "issues."

Seriously though, Steven, I think you got it right on.

[John T]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message

>
> They might drop the joint.


A solid case of drug abuse? :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> What, no Mag-Lite to the bridge of the nose? That would work, too.
>

The Mag-Lite is used with immediate threats to my well-being.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> And he wouldn't cold-cock the guy trying to get out of the plane?
> Steven is slipping.
>

It's his life, if he truly wants to end it that is his right.

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> It's his life, if he truly wants to end it that is his right.

I'd be afraid of him breaking something on the way out.

- Andrew

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>> And he wouldn't cold-cock the guy trying to get out of the plane?
>> Steven is slipping.
>
>It's his life, if he truly wants to end it that is his right.

It's not his "right" to cause trauma to you, to people on the ground, to
subject you to lost income and inconvenience during an FAA and/or police
investigation, etc. If he wants to end his life, he can damn well do it
at home.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Why are we hiding from the police, mommy?"
"Because we use vi, dear, and they use emacs."

[No Such User]

In article >, SelwayKid wrote:
>How would you handle a situation where a paying passenger began to
>manhandle the controls?

I would manhandle the passenger.

>What would you do if a passenger keeps interrupting you during a
>single pilot IFR approach into a very busy airport?

Disconnect his intercom.

>What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
>back of a twin?

Two possibilities come to mind:
#1: Shout into the microphone as if I'm on the radio, "Mayday! Fire in the
cockpit! We're all going to die!"
#2: "I hear from the medical marijuana people that pot is good for supressing
nausea. Let's see if that's really true." Yank. Bank. Repeat.

>What would you do if the passenger was so big they kept getting in the
>way of control travel?

In the planes I fly, I would never get the W&B to work out.

>What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
>while in flight?

If it were any of the above passengers, I would smile and say, "have a nice
flight!"

[No Such User]

In article >, SelwayKid wrote:
>How would you handle a situation where a paying passenger began to
>manhandle the controls?

I would manhandle the passenger.

>What would you do if a passenger keeps interrupting you during a
>single pilot IFR approach into a very busy airport?

Disconnect his intercom.

>What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
>back of a twin?

Two possibilities come to mind:
#1: Shout into the microphone as if I'm on the radio, "Mayday! Fire in the
cockpit! We're all going to die!"
#2: "I hear from the medical marijuana people that pot is good for supressing
nausea. Let's see if that's really true." Yank. Bank. Repeat.

>What would you do if the passenger was so big they kept getting in the
>way of control travel?

In the planes I fly, I would never get the W&B to work out.

>What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
>while in flight?

If it were any of the above passengers, I would smile and say, "have a nice
flight!"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's not his "right" to cause trauma to you, to people on the ground,
>

Agreed, he has no right to harm anyone else or anyone else's property.

[Otis Winslow]

Fly alone.


"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
m...
> How would you handle a situation where a paying passenger began to
> manhandle the controls?
> What would you do if a passenger keeps interrupting you during a
> single pilot IFR approach into a very busy airport?
> What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> back of a twin?
> What would you do if the passenger was so big they kept getting in the
> way of control travel?
> What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
> while in flight?
> These are all real and all have happened to me in my 45 years of
> flying. A lot more that I can't think of at the moment.
> A pilot was recently faced with it when an 84 year old man decided to
> unstrap and get out of the front cockpit of a biplane and plunged to
> his death. The pilot was unable to stop him.
> What would you do?

[Malcolm Teas]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> My bad. Forgot to look at the date of this troll.
>
> My solution to all the above problems would be to shoot the passenger. If he
> had drugs or cash, I would steal them.

I'll be really polite when flying with you! And not carry any cash... :)

-Malcolm Teas

[Dave S]

SelwayKid wrote:

> How would you handle a situation where a paying passenger began to
> manhandle the controls?

Stick a pencil in his ear to get him to release the controls if he didnt
listen. Probably bop him in the nose to bring tears to his eyes if he
persisted

> What would you do if a passenger keeps interrupting you during a
> single pilot IFR approach into a very busy airport?

Ask nicely once to please be quiet as instructed in the preflight
breifing. Then quit asking nicely. THen switch the intercom to "pilot" only.

> What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> back of a twin?

Ask them if they brought enough for everyone. How did you handle it?

> What would you do if the passenger was so big they kept getting in the
> way of control travel?

Slide his seat all the way back, and not try to fly where I needed that
much control travel. Didnt you check freedom of control movement in your
pre-takeoff checklist? This shouldnt have been an airborne surprise.

> What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
> while in flight?

Note the position very well, so they wouldnt have to wait two days for
the buzzards to circle to find the body, like they did down in Houston
last year. A former rocket scientist decided to try Skydiving sans chute
like that last year. He didnt have cancer like the 84 year old did, he
only was facing charges for stealing govt property.

> These are all real and all have happened to me in my 45 years of
> flying. A lot more that I can't think of at the moment.
> A pilot was recently faced with it when an 84 year old man decided to
> unstrap and get out of the front cockpit of a biplane and plunged to
> his death. The pilot was unable to stop him.
> What would you do?

What COULD you do?

Dave

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> My bad. Forgot to look at the date of this troll.
>
> My solution to all the above problems would be to shoot the passenger. If
he
> had drugs or cash, I would steal them.
>
Hmmm...the "Armed pilots" thread resurrected.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> My bad. Forgot to look at the date of this troll.
>
> My solution to all the above problems would be to shoot the passenger. If
he
> had drugs or cash, I would steal them.
>
Is that why the airline pilots want to carry guns? :~)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And he wouldn't cold-cock the guy trying to get out of the plane?
> > Steven is slipping.
> >
>
> It's his life, if he truly wants to end it that is his right.
>
Agreed...vehemently. (Though the points made about falling hazards, etc.,
are quite legitimate. His life is his own, but go quietly into that long
good-night..)

[Buff5200]

SelwayKid wrote:

>What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
>while in flight?
>
Dial up appropriate frequency for the airspace, and announce skydiver
exiting the aircraft.

[H. Adam Stevens]

"Buff5200" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> SelwayKid wrote:
>
> >What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
> >while in flight?
> >
> Dial up appropriate frequency for the airspace, and announce skydiver
> exiting the aircraft.
>
You'll get violated for failing to post a skydiving NOTAM 30 minutes prior.

[SelwayKid]

(SelwayKid) wrote in message >...
> How would you handle a situation where a paying passenger began to
> manhandle the controls?
> What would you do if a passenger keeps interrupting you during a
> single pilot IFR approach into a very busy airport?
> What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> back of a twin?
> What would you do if the passenger was so big they kept getting in the
> way of control travel?
> What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
> while in flight?
> These are all real and all have happened to me in my 45 years of
> flying. A lot more that I can't think of at the moment.
> A pilot was recently faced with it when an 84 year old man decided to
> unstrap and get out of the front cockpit of a biplane and plunged to
> his death. The pilot was unable to stop him.
> What would you do?

Well Boys N Girls
What I did was.... the pax who tried to wrestle the controls from me
did get himself smacked with the fire X that I grabbed from behind the
seat. It dazed him enough that I was able to get the airplane on the
ground. I expected a fight from him but he just rubbed his head where
I hit him and kind of stupid asked me.."Why'd y'all do theyat?"
The pax who kept kibitzing during the IFR approach was the boss in the
rear facing seat directly behind me in a Merlin II. I finally told him
to shut up or I'd declare a missed approach, take it back up to
altitude and beat **** out of him and then quit. He shut up and didn't
speak to me for a week - because he was headed for Europe after I
dropped him off at LAX. When he got back he apologized to me for the
problem and said it would never happen again - and it didn't.
When my pax lit their joints on a charter from VNY to LAS, I began to
roll the airplane, a KA90, from side to side and kept increasing the
angle of bank. The guy who asked to sit in the right seat asked me
what in hell I was doing and I told him, "Man I just LUUUUUUVVVVV that
good ****...!" He screamed back to the rear pax to put out their
joints because the pilot was getting stoned!
The big guy pax was a former race pilot who had kind of slid forward
to get comfortable and we didn't notice it until I began to flare in
the Hiller UH12E helicopter behind another helicopter on the ground.
When I realized I was running out of cyclic, I did a go around. My pax
immediately recognized the problem and began pushing himself farther
back in the seat. We did a safe landing and had a good laugh over it.
An unruly pax who was a heavyweight customer of the corporation I flew
for had been into the bar in back pretty heavy. He came forward
demanding that I get him some more scotch. When I told him the bar was
closed he got nasty and said he'd get me fired, etc, etc, (yawn) and
headed back to get off the airplane at FL250. I immediately
depressurized the cabin and he barely made it to a seat before he
passed out into a blissful sleep. When I knew he was out I ran cabin
pressure back down but he stayed asleep the rest of the flight. My
boss thought that was the neatest trick he ever heard of and asked why
I didn't do the same thing to him when he got out of line!
The only pax who scared me was a woman who undid her seat belt in a
Hiller 12E to crawl across top of me and get in the seat away from the
open door because it ruffled her hair! That was a lesson I'll never
forget! She was an absolute crazy woman.
Selway Kid

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > And he wouldn't cold-cock the guy trying to get out of the plane?
> > > Steven is slipping.
> > >
> >
> > It's his life, if he truly wants to end it that is his right.
> >
> Agreed...vehemently. (Though the points made about falling hazards, etc.,
> are quite legitimate. His life is his own, but go quietly into that long
> good-night..)

Baloney. No one's life is their own, nor is anyone an island to themselves.
No one can commit suicide without adversely affecting the lives of many
others. (Well, maybe Saddam Hussein could.)

People who wish to kill themselves rarely, perhaps never, stay that way for
long. Those who are stopped are invariably thankful that someone intervened.
A better approach is counseling and help with their problems. Suicide is
always dangerous to others. People are stuck with the chore of cleaning up
afterwards. Everyone has to pay the costs of medical care for botched
suicide attempts, which far outnumber successful suicides. Many would-be
suicides end up permanently disabled, adding a further burden to taxpayers
and insurance payers, often for decades.

Family members and friends are invariably traumatized by the event.
Marriages are broken up and children are raised without parents. The
children of suicides are far more likely to commit suicide themselves when
they get older. Their grades suffer and they become less productive as
adults. Fortunes are wasted on counseling. Many turn to drugs, with
corresponding effects on crime, society, and the economy.

Killing yourself does not make your problems go away. It just transfers them
to someone else. It may come as a shock to you, but most people think it is
better to deal with problems rather than run away from them. The vast
majority of people, even those with terrible, terminal diseases, manage to
get by from day to day and even do something productive. It is an insult to
these brave individuals to suggest that killing yourself might be a better
alternative.

Letting some guy who is drunk, disoriented, or distressed kill himself
'because it his right' is a gross disservice to both the individual and the
community around him.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Baloney. No one's life is their own, nor is anyone an island to
themselves.
>

In a free society one's life is their own.


>
> No one can commit suicide without adversely affecting the lives of many
> others.
>

Irrelevant.

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Baloney. No one's life is their own, nor is anyone an island to
> themselves.
> >
>
> In a free society one's life is their own.
>

That would only be true if killing yourself does not make everybody else
less free. Suicide impinges on the freedom of everyone else, who must now
support the suicide's family, educate his children, pay for his medical
bills, and possibly even support him for the rest of his life if he botches
the attempt and merely permanently disables himself. We also have to pay
higher insurance premiums, clean up mess, deal with reduced property values,
and suffer many other economic costs imposed on us by the suicide.

Suicide reduces freedom. It is worth noting that suicide rates are highest
in societies that have the least amount of freedom, as in imperial Rome and
feudal Japan. A society that tolerates or even encourages suicide is the
antithesis of free.

[Otis Winslow]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Baloney. No one's life is their own, nor is anyone an island to
themselves.

This is typical Liberal BS. When I hear someone else tell me how they
are entitled to control my life I see red. I sure couldn't see myself taking
my own life .. but would indeed be willing to defend my freedom against
those wishing to control me. With maximum prejudice.

[C J Campbell]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Baloney. No one's life is their own, nor is anyone an island to
> themselves.
>
> This is typical Liberal BS. When I hear someone else tell me how they
> are entitled to control my life I see red.

When somebody commits suicide they are in fact attempting to control your
life. They want you to pay for their problems, raise their kids, pay their
medical bills, etc.

You know, it really amuses me the way some people in this group think I am
an extreme liberal and the others think I am a right wing lunatic. If it
helps you to ignore people by putting labels on them and filing them away,
be my guest. But that does not make the problem go away.

Are you really suggesting that some kid should be allowed to hang himself
because he got a D on his chemistry test -- that he has some kind of right
to do that without interference? If not, at what point do you think the
decision to kill yourself should be left to the individual?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:49:09 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Suicide reduces freedom.

That must be the reason Arab children are schooled in it. :-(

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> That would only be true if killing yourself does not make everybody else
> less free.
>

In a free society, it doesn't.


>
> Suicide impinges on the freedom of everyone else, who must now
> support the suicide's family, educate his children, pay for his medical
> bills, and possibly even support him for the rest of his life if he
botches
> the attempt and merely permanently disables himself.
>

In a free society, nobody is forced to support the suicide's family, educate
his children, pay for his medical bills, or support him for the rest of his
life if he botches the attempt and permanently disables himself.


>
> Suicide reduces freedom.
>

Anyone that believes that does not understand what it means to be free.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> When somebody commits suicide they are in fact attempting to
> control your life. They want you to pay for their problems, raise
> their kids, pay their medical bills, etc.
>

Not in a free society. If you can be forced to pay for their problems,
raise their kids, pay their medical bills, etc., then you are not living in
a free society.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> You know, it really amuses me the way some people in this group think I am
> an extreme liberal [lunatic] and the others think I am a right wing
lunatic.

Some of us just think you're a lunatic, plain and simple. :)

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That would only be true if killing yourself does not make everybody else
> > less free.
> >
>
> In a free society, it doesn't.
>
>
> >
> > Suicide impinges on the freedom of everyone else, who must now
> > support the suicide's family, educate his children, pay for his medical
> > bills, and possibly even support him for the rest of his life if he
> botches
> > the attempt and merely permanently disables himself.
> >
>
> In a free society, nobody is forced to support the suicide's family,
educate
> his children, pay for his medical bills, or support him for the rest of
his
> life if he botches the attempt and permanently disables himself.
>

An interesting point, but if you do not support the suicide's family and
educate his children, then the suicide himself has decided to doom his
family to poverty or even death. I don't think he has the right to do that
in a free society.

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > When somebody commits suicide they are in fact attempting to
> > control your life. They want you to pay for their problems, raise
> > their kids, pay their medical bills, etc.
> >
>
> Not in a free society. If you can be forced to pay for their problems,
> raise their kids, pay their medical bills, etc., then you are not living
in
> a free society.

And if a suicide imposes these problems on them, then they are not living in
a free society, either.

[C J Campbell]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Baloney. No one's life is their own, nor is anyone an island to
> themselves.
>
> This is typical Liberal BS. When I hear someone else tell me how they
> are entitled to control my life I see red. I sure couldn't see myself
taking
> my own life .. but would indeed be willing to defend my freedom against
> those wishing to control me. With maximum prejudice.
>
>

One other point -- it is the liberals who are generally most supportive of a
right to commit suicide. They seem to be interested in all kinds of
government sanctioned death, with the notable exception of capital
punishment. But they just fall all over themselves supporting the right to
commit suicide, euthanize old people, and kill unborn children. It has
reached the point that the Democratic Party resembles nothing so much as a
cult of death worshippers.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "C J Campbell" > said:
>punishment. But they just fall all over themselves supporting the right to
>commit suicide, euthanize old people, and kill unborn children. It has
>reached the point that the Democratic Party resembles nothing so much as a
>cult of death worshippers.

Remember the good old days, when it was the Republicans who thought that
the government shouldn't make laws taking away your right to do something
unless it harmed others? That was back before they became a wholey owned
subsidiary of the radical Christian Right.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Stay calm, be brave, and wait for the signs!"
- Jasper Friendlybear and Gracie Heavyhand.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> An interesting point, but if you do not support the suicide's family and
> educate his children, then the suicide himself has decided to doom his
> family to poverty or even death. I don't think he has the right to do that
> in a free society.
>

I might choose to assist the suicide's family. That's charity, and
altogether different from being forced to support them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> And if a suicide imposes these problems on them, then they are not
> living in a free society, either.
>

How so? If the suicide had not killed himself, but just abandoned them
instead, would their problems be any different?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Remember the good old days, when it was the Republicans who
> thought that the government shouldn't make laws taking away your
> right to do something unless it harmed others?
>

Well, since that's pretty much still the case, yes, I do remember it.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Baloney. No one's life is their own, nor is anyone an island to
>> themselves.
>>
>> This is typical Liberal BS. When I hear someone else tell me how they
>> are entitled to control my life I see red.
>
> When somebody commits suicide they are in fact attempting to control your
> life. They want you to pay for their problems, raise their kids, pay their
> medical bills, etc.

One of the common causes of suicide is a terminal medical condition;
suicide in that situation *reduces* medical bills. Kids can be an
issue, and the spouse (who gets stuck with the kids by default) is
often the big loser.

> You know, it really amuses me the way some people in this group think I am
> an extreme liberal and the others think I am a right wing lunatic. If it
> helps you to ignore people by putting labels on them and filing them away,
> be my guest. But that does not make the problem go away.
>
> Are you really suggesting that some kid should be allowed to hang himself
> because he got a D on his chemistry test -- that he has some kind of right
> to do that without interference? If not, at what point do you think the
> decision to kill yourself should be left to the individual?

Yes. I think it's a *terribly* bad decision, but the whole point of
personal sovereignty is that we don't get to make private decisions
for other people. I think the kid should be encouraged to seek
counseling, his friends should be encouraged to call the counselors on
his behalf even. But in the end when it comes down to "allowing" or
"preventing", it's his choice.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Robert M. Gary]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "SelwayKid" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
> > back of a twin?
> >
>
> I'd inform them smoking is not allowed aboard my aircraft.
> >
> > What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
> > while in flight?
> >
>
> Tell him it's a bad idea.

Unless he plans to smoke. :) I taught at one FBO that had a sign on
the panel that said, "Please step outside if you wish to smoke".


-Robert, CFI

[Dan Truesdell]

Thanks for the explanations. Food for thought if we get into a similar
situations. (Although, I doubt that any of my pax will be hitting the
bar in the 172.)


SelwayKid wrote:
> (SelwayKid) wrote in message >...
>
>>How would you handle a situation where a paying passenger began to
>>manhandle the controls?
>>What would you do if a passenger keeps interrupting you during a
>>single pilot IFR approach into a very busy airport?
>>What would you do if your passengers lit up their marijuana in the
>>back of a twin?
>>What would you do if the passenger was so big they kept getting in the
>>way of control travel?
>>What would you do if your passenger decided to get out of the airplane
>>while in flight?
>>These are all real and all have happened to me in my 45 years of
>>flying. A lot more that I can't think of at the moment.
>>A pilot was recently faced with it when an 84 year old man decided to
>>unstrap and get out of the front cockpit of a biplane and plunged to
>>his death. The pilot was unable to stop him.
>>What would you do?
>
>
> Well Boys N Girls
> What I did was.... the pax who tried to wrestle the controls from me
> did get himself smacked with the fire X that I grabbed from behind the
> seat. It dazed him enough that I was able to get the airplane on the
> ground. I expected a fight from him but he just rubbed his head where
> I hit him and kind of stupid asked me.."Why'd y'all do theyat?"
> The pax who kept kibitzing during the IFR approach was the boss in the
> rear facing seat directly behind me in a Merlin II. I finally told him
> to shut up or I'd declare a missed approach, take it back up to
> altitude and beat **** out of him and then quit. He shut up and didn't
> speak to me for a week - because he was headed for Europe after I
> dropped him off at LAX. When he got back he apologized to me for the
> problem and said it would never happen again - and it didn't.
> When my pax lit their joints on a charter from VNY to LAS, I began to
> roll the airplane, a KA90, from side to side and kept increasing the
> angle of bank. The guy who asked to sit in the right seat asked me
> what in hell I was doing and I told him, "Man I just LUUUUUUVVVVV that
> good ****...!" He screamed back to the rear pax to put out their
> joints because the pilot was getting stoned!
> The big guy pax was a former race pilot who had kind of slid forward
> to get comfortable and we didn't notice it until I began to flare in
> the Hiller UH12E helicopter behind another helicopter on the ground.
> When I realized I was running out of cyclic, I did a go around. My pax
> immediately recognized the problem and began pushing himself farther
> back in the seat. We did a safe landing and had a good laugh over it.
> An unruly pax who was a heavyweight customer of the corporation I flew
> for had been into the bar in back pretty heavy. He came forward
> demanding that I get him some more scotch. When I told him the bar was
> closed he got nasty and said he'd get me fired, etc, etc, (yawn) and
> headed back to get off the airplane at FL250. I immediately
> depressurized the cabin and he barely made it to a seat before he
> passed out into a blissful sleep. When I knew he was out I ran cabin
> pressure back down but he stayed asleep the rest of the flight. My
> boss thought that was the neatest trick he ever heard of and asked why
> I didn't do the same thing to him when he got out of line!
> The only pax who scared me was a woman who undid her seat belt in a
> Hiller 12E to crawl across top of me and get in the seat away from the
> open door because it ruffled her hair! That was a lesson I'll never
> forget! She was an absolute crazy woman.
> Selway Kid


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dan Truesdell wrote:
>
> Thanks for the explanations. Food for thought if we get into a similar
> situations. (Although, I doubt that any of my pax will be hitting the
> bar in the 172.)

and I sure won't be knocking anyone out by reducing cabin pressure in the Maule.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Baloney. No one's life is their own, nor is anyone an island to
> themselves.
>
> This is typical Liberal BS.

I think the conservatives are far more intrusive in people's lives.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> > Agreed...vehemently. (Though the points made about falling hazards,
etc.,
> > are quite legitimate. His life is his own, but go quietly into that long
> > good-night..)
>
> Baloney. No one's life is their own,

Then whose is it?


> nor is anyone an island to themselves.
> No one can commit suicide without adversely affecting the lives of many
> others. (Well, maybe Saddam Hussein could.)

Nice barf on co-dependency.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Baloney. No one's life is their own, nor is anyone an island to
> themselves.
> >
>
> In a free society one's life is their own.

And in a proper family setting as well. (Having watched a parent take a year
to die from a brain tumor, I think I can claim a bit of experinces on that.)

>
>
> >
> > No one can commit suicide without adversely affecting the lives of many
> > others.
> >
>
> Irrelevant.
>
Quite.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > And he wouldn't cold-cock the guy trying to get out of the plane?
> > > > Steven is slipping.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's his life, if he truly wants to end it that is his right.
> > >
> > Agreed...vehemently. (Though the points made about falling hazards,
etc.,
> > are quite legitimate. His life is his own, but go quietly into that long
> > good-night..)
>
> Baloney. No one's life is their own, nor is anyone an island to
themselves.
> No one can commit suicide without adversely affecting the lives of many
> others. (Well, maybe Saddam Hussein could.)
>

For someone such as yourself who claimed an affinity with Ayn Rand, that's
some of the most absurd drivel I've read in a long time.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> said:
> >punishment. But they just fall all over themselves supporting the right
to
> >commit suicide, euthanize old people, and kill unborn children. It has
> >reached the point that the Democratic Party resembles nothing so much as
a
> >cult of death worshippers.
>
> Remember the good old days, when it was the Republicans who thought that
> the government shouldn't make laws taking away your right to do something
> unless it harmed others? That was back before they became a wholey owned
> subsidiary of the radical Christian Right.

And according to CJ's profile on Jay's site, that's a dead-on assessment.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Remember the good old days, when it was the Republicans who
> > thought that the government shouldn't make laws taking away your
> > right to do something unless it harmed others?
> >
>
> Well, since that's pretty much still the case, yes, I do remember it.

Really? Still the case? An example or two would be appreciated.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> I think the conservatives are far more intrusive in people's lives.
>

Impossible.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Really? Still the case? An example or two would be appreciated.
>

I don't know how to provide an example of not making a law.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> Remember the good old days, when it was the Republicans who
>> thought that the government shouldn't make laws taking away your
>> right to do something unless it harmed others?
>>
>
>Well, since that's pretty much still the case, yes, I do remember it.

Well, CJ was just talking about those evil liberal "death worshipers" who
want to repeal the laws that make it illegal to commit suicide that it
seemed to be that it was Republicans who supported those laws in the first
place. You know, laws that take away your right to do something that
doesn't harm others.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I stayed up all night playing poker with tarot cards. I got a full
house and four people died. -- Steven Wright

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Really? Still the case? An example or two would be appreciated.
> >
>
> I don't know how to provide an example of not making a law.
>
So, I suppose so many of those laws passed since the R's came to power in
1995 don't exist?

Wonder of wonders...!!!

Maybe this will help your memory :~)

The Awful Truth about Republicans

By Robert B. Ekelund, Jr., and Mark Thornton

[Posted March 25, 2004]

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1476&id=67

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, I suppose so many of those laws passed since the R's came to
> power in 1995 don't exist?
>

I would think that every law ever passed and not rescinded exists,
regardless who was in power when it was passed.


>
> Wonder of wonders...!!!
>
> Maybe this will help your memory :~)
>
> The Awful Truth about Republicans
>
> By Robert B. Ekelund, Jr., and Mark Thornton
>
> [Posted March 25, 2004]
>
> http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1476&id=67
>

Well, if you knew of examples of laws that were not made, why ask me?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So, I suppose so many of those laws passed since the R's came to
> > power in 1995 don't exist?
> >
>
> I would think that every law ever passed and not rescinded exists,
> regardless who was in power when it was passed.
>
>
> >
> > Wonder of wonders...!!!
> >
> > Maybe this will help your memory :~)
> >
> > The Awful Truth about Republicans
> >
> > By Robert B. Ekelund, Jr., and Mark Thornton
> >
> > [Posted March 25, 2004]
> >
> > http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1476&id=67
> >
>
> Well, if you knew of examples of laws that were not made, why ask me?
>

Cute.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> > said:
> > >punishment. But they just fall all over themselves supporting the right
> to
> > >commit suicide, euthanize old people, and kill unborn children. It has
> > >reached the point that the Democratic Party resembles nothing so much
as
> a
> > >cult of death worshippers.
> >
> > Remember the good old days, when it was the Republicans who thought that
> > the government shouldn't make laws taking away your right to do
something
> > unless it harmed others? That was back before they became a wholey
owned
> > subsidiary of the radical Christian Right.
>
> And according to CJ's profile on Jay's site, that's a dead-on assessment.

The radical Christian right might beg to differ with that view. When I was
working on Troy Romero's campaign for state senate a few years ago, the
local Journal-American pointed out that Troy is a 'Mormon' and recommended
voting against him because of his Christian beliefs. The Christian right was
so incensed at a 'Mormon' running for office that they fielded their own
candidate and campaigned against Troy claiming that he is not a Christian.
So I guess you just can't win for losing.

It has always been like that. Still, the State of Illinois recently passed a
resolution apologizing for the State sanctioned assassination of Joseph
Smith (then the Presidential candidate of the Reform Party), seizing of all
lands and assets belonging to 'Mormons,' official disenfranchisement of all
members, driving them out of their homes in the middle of winter without
adequate food and clothing, and using military force to burn and pillage the
city of Nauvoo. That was very nice of them and the resolution was gratefully
received by members of the Church. Still, you see the same attitudes that
prevailed in those times are still around, even on this news group.

A copy of the resolution is below:


HR0627

LRB093 16247 KEF 41881 r







1

HOUSE RESOLUTION




2

WHEREAS, 138 years ago Brigham Young and more than 20,000

3

members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were

4

expelled from the State of Illinois after the Illinois General

5

Assembly withdrew its charter for the city of Nauvoo, Illinois

6

in Hancock County in 1844; and


7

WHEREAS, During a period of seven years of Illinois

8

history, from 1839 to 1846, Latter-day Saints built and

9

developed the city of Nauvoo into the largest city in the State

10

of Illinois and the tenth largest city in the nation; and


11

WHEREAS, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

12

was established by Joseph Smith in Fayette, New York on April

13

6, 1830; and


14

WHEREAS, The Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith, led the

15

community of Latter-day Saints from Fayette, New York to

16

Kirtland, Ohio in 1831; and from Ohio to Independence,

17

Missouri, in 1837; and


18

WHEREAS, Joseph Smith, a strong anti-slavery advocate, led

19

his community of some 15,000 Latter-day Saints to the

20

Mississippi River town of Nauvoo, in Illinois, following their

21

expulsion from the slave State of Missouri in 1839; and


22

WHEREAS, Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints exercised

23

enormous industry and effort in the development and growth of

24

the town of Nauvoo, succeeding in creating a prosperous

25

community in which they drained the local swamp lands and

26

transformed them into productive agricultural and residential

27

environments; and


28

WHEREAS, Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints were given

29

an extraordinary charter for the powers of home-rule by the










HR0627
- 2 -
LRB093 16247 KEF 41881 r







1

Illinois General Assembly to create and preside over their own

2

court system and also to maintain their own military force,

3

second in size only to the United States Army; and


4

WHEREAS, Joseph Smith and the community of Latter-day

5

Saints exercised extensive missionary activities which drew

6

new Mormon settlers to the city Nauvoo, reaching a population

7

of some 20,000 citizens by 1844; and


8

WHEREAS, The prevailing economic conditions of the nation

9

in general, and Illinois in particular, faced a downturn in the

10

early 1840s, with the result that the rapidly growing

11

population of Nauvoo faced drastic levels of unemployment

12

without success in attracting needed industry; and


13

WHEREAS, During the period of their residency in Nauvoo,

14

Joseph Smith and his community of Latter-day Saints began as

15

political Democrats, transferring their political allegiance

16

to the Whig Party in both the elections of 1838 and 1840,

17

before once again transferring their affiliations back to the

18

Democratic Party in the election of 1842, until the

19

establishment of the Reform Party by Smith in time for the

20

election of 1844, when he began to seriously campaign for the

21

office of President of the United States; and


22

WHEREAS, The expression of political authority and power

23

within the community of Latter-day Saints was seen by many

24

citizens in Illinois as reasons for caution and concern, seeing

25

the control of local courts by Joseph Smith as autocratic, and

26

interpreting the leverage and influence of the Mormon

27

community's voting strength as an over influential forceful and

28

voting bloc; and


29

WHEREAS, Local religious customs among the Latter-day

30

Saints began to be viewed with suspicion, bias and

31

misunderstanding; and











HR0627
- 3 -
LRB093 16247 KEF 41881 r







1

WHEREAS, Following the destruction of a local anti-Mormon

2

newspaper known as the Expositor, violence against the

3

Latter-day Saint community increased; and


4

WHEREAS, The Governor of the State of Illinois, Thomas

5

Ford, called out the Illinois Militia to keep order; and


6

WHEREAS, Governor Ford had the Prophet Joseph Smith and his

7

brother, Hiram Smith, jailed, on suspicion of complicity in the

8

destruction of the Expositor, in the nearby town jail of

9

Carthage, Illinois; and


10

WHEREAS, A violent mob stormed the Carthage jail on June

11

27, 1844, causing the deaths of Joseph and Hiram Smith; and


12

WHEREAS, Between 1844 and 1845, violent acts against the

13

community of Latter-day Saints increased in volume and

14

intensity, demonstrated in such acts as the burning of crops,

15

the destruction of homes and the threaten extermination of the

16

entire Mormon population; and


17

WHEREAS, Faced with the extremism against the community of

18

Latter-day Saints, Brigham Young, the new leader of the Nauvoo

19

community made plans to take his people out of Illinois; and


20

WHEREAS, Beginning on February 4, 1846, Brigham Young began

21

sending the community of Latter-day Saints out of their

22

homeland of Nauvoo, Illinois across the frozen waters of the

23

Mississippi River, in the largest forced migration in American

24

history; and


25

WHEREAS, Brigham Young made an exodus from the State of

26

Illinois, leading tens of thousands of men, women and children,

27

together with livestock and wagons that stretched across the

28

expansive winter horizon for miles; and











HR0627
- 4 -
LRB093 16247 KEF 41881 r







1

WHEREAS, In this Mormon exodus, Brigham Young and the

2

community of Latter-day Saints left behind their life in

3

Illinois and the shining city that they had fashioned from both

4

their faith and the hard work of their hands; and


5

WHEREAS, Brigham Young and the community of Latter-day

6

Saints set off in the midst of winter for Utah, some 1300 miles

7

to the west; and


8

WHEREAS, The severity of the winter placed on Brigham Young

9

and the community of Latter-day Saints extreme hardships,

10

trudging across the Iowa Plains to the far side of that state

11

where they made a winter camp; and


12

WHEREAS, In the Spring of 1847, Brigham Young and the

13

community of Latter-day Saints began again their journey to

14

Utah, beyond the Rocky Mountain Range, to the valley of the

15

Great Salt Lake; and


16

WHEREAS, On July 24, 1847, Brigham Young and the community

17

of Latter-day Saints arrived in that valley following a trek of

18

more than five months, journeying across the heart of the

19

American continent, from the heartbreak of events in Nauvoo,

20

Illinois to a place of far-western refuge; and


21

WHEREAS, Within 50 years of their arrival in the territory

22

of Utah, the community of Latter-day Saint became the 45th

23

state in the Union on January 4, 1896; and


24

WHEREAS, The community of Latter-day Saints grew from a

25

population of 250,000 at the end of the 19th century to a

26

population of more than 10 million people in our present day;

27

and


28

WHEREAS, The goodness, patriotism, high moral conduct, and










HR0627
- 5 -
LRB093 16247 KEF 41881 r







1

generosity of the community of Latter-day Saints has enriched

2

the landscape of the United States and the world; and


3

WHEREAS, The biases and prejudices of a less enlightened

4

age in the history of the State of Illinois caused untolled

5

hardship and trauma for the community of Latter-day Saints by

6

the distrust, violence, and inhospitable actions of a dark time

7

in our past; therefore, be it


8

RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE

9

NINETY-THIRD GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we

10

acknowledge the disparity of those past actions and suspicions,

11

regretting the expulsion of the community of Latter-day Saints,

12

a people of faith and hard work; and be it further


13

RESOLVED, That we asks the pardon and forgiveness of the

14

community of Latter-day Saints for the misguided efforts of our

15

citizens, Chief Executive and the General Assembly in the

16

expulsion of their Mormon ancestors from the gleaming city of

17

Nauvoo and the State of Illinois.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> > > said:
> > > >punishment. But they just fall all over themselves supporting the
right
> > to
> > > >commit suicide, euthanize old people, and kill unborn children. It
has
> > > >reached the point that the Democratic Party resembles nothing so much
> as
> > a
> > > >cult of death worshippers.
> > >
> > > Remember the good old days, when it was the Republicans who thought
that
> > > the government shouldn't make laws taking away your right to do
> something
> > > unless it harmed others? That was back before they became a wholey
> owned
> > > subsidiary of the radical Christian Right.
> >
> > And according to CJ's profile on Jay's site, that's a dead-on
assessment.
>
> The radical Christian right might beg to differ with that view. When I was
> working on Troy Romero's campaign for state senate a few years ago, the
> local Journal-American pointed out that Troy is a 'Mormon' and recommended
> voting against him because of his Christian beliefs.

We got the same thing here when Matt Salmon tried running for governor, from
both the Dem's and the Repub's.

> The Christian right was
> so incensed at a 'Mormon' running for office that they fielded their own
> candidate and campaigned against Troy claiming that he is not a Christian.
> So I guess you just can't win for losing.

Religions, for the most part, hate intolerence...of their views.

>
> It has always been like that. Still, the State of Illinois recently passed
a
> resolution apologizing for the State sanctioned assassination of Joseph
> Smith (then the Presidential candidate of the Reform Party), seizing of
all
> lands and assets belonging to 'Mormons,' official disenfranchisement of
all
> members, driving them out of their homes in the middle of winter without
> adequate food and clothing, and using military force to burn and pillage
the
> city of Nauvoo. That was very nice of them and the resolution was
gratefully
> received by members of the Church. Still, you see the same attitudes that
> prevailed in those times are still around, even on this news group.

In Utah, until just a few years ago, you couldn't win office unless you were
Mormon. Same goes in predominantly Mormon areas in other states, such as
Mesa, AZ. Things have changed and they are longer the dominant political
force, but it isn't unusual in how these groups like to think that as long
as they are the majority they can rule with an iron fist.

I note, too, that the Mormon's were banned from practicing polygamy in the
late 1800's because "it wasn't a mainstream practice".

Today the Mormon's are pretty "hands off" regarding other peoples values and
they don't try to foist their religious values on the entire towns where
they live (such as bar, liquor and the like), but they sure didn't go
voluntarily.

Still, I don't think there's a religious group out there that wouldn't turn
their town, state, or the entire country into a theocracy of their own
making if they could get away with it. Apparently they think that all they
need is enough votes and a selective enough interpretation of the
Constitution that would do modern liberals proud.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:r5Vbc.12
>
> In Utah, until just a few years ago, you couldn't win office unless you
were
> Mormon. Same goes in predominantly Mormon areas in other states, such as
> Mesa, AZ. Things have changed and they are longer the dominant political
> force, but it isn't unusual in how these groups like to think that as long
> as they are the majority they can rule with an iron fist.
>

This could be said of any place where there is essentially a dominant
monoculture. The alternative, of course, is to ask 'Mormons' (or anybody
else) to not promote their values in the political arena, which would be
both ridiculous and unfair. After all, that is what democracy is all about.
Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but 'Mormons'
should not? I think it is vital to a living democracy that everybody work
hard to promote their particular political agendas, or you will end up with
just the sort of iron fist rule that you are talking about.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:r5Vbc.12
> >
> > In Utah, until just a few years ago, you couldn't win office unless you
> were
> > Mormon. Same goes in predominantly Mormon areas in other states, such as
> > Mesa, AZ. Things have changed and they are longer the dominant political
> > force, but it isn't unusual in how these groups like to think that as
long
> > as they are the majority they can rule with an iron fist.
> >
>
> This could be said of any place where there is essentially a dominant
> monoculture.

Except they are not a monoculture, even in Utah.

> The alternative, of course, is to ask 'Mormons' (or anybody
> else) to not promote their values in the political arena, which would be
> both ridiculous and unfair.

Geez, you don't suppose the First Amendment tries to prevent that?

> After all, that is what democracy is all about.

Well, considering the fact we're not a democracy...

> Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but 'Mormons'
> should not?

My political opinion has nothing to do with religious views or even my
morals. That stuff is between me and my alter ego.

> I think it is vital to a living democracy that everybody work
> hard to promote their particular political agendas, or you will end up
with
> just the sort of iron fist rule that you are talking about.

Yeah...let's wait until the Fundementalist Muslims claim that right.

>
Like I said...give 'em enough votes.

(I though you had a better clue of the proper functions of government?)

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but
'Mormons'
> > should not?
>
> My political opinion has nothing to do with religious views or even my
> morals. That stuff is between me and my alter ego.

Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions have
nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but
> 'Mormons'
> > > should not?
> >
> > My political opinion has nothing to do with religious views or even my
> > morals. That stuff is between me and my alter ego.
>
> Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions have
> nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?

My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > > Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but
> > 'Mormons'
> > > > should not?
> > >
> > > My political opinion has nothing to do with religious views or even my
> > > morals. That stuff is between me and my alter ego.
> >
> > Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions have
> > nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?
>
> My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.

May I suggest that you are deluding yourself? Your views of what is right
and wrong are probably no more rational than those espoused by most
religions. It seems hypocritical to demand that you have a voice in the
political system while denying that voice to others on the basis of their
religious beliefs. Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > > Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions have
> > > nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?
> >
> > My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.
>
> May I suggest that you are deluding yourself? Your views of what is right
> and wrong are probably no more rational than those espoused by most
> religions.

Suggest anything you want, but until religion is based on reason instead of
faith, don't talk to me about rationality.

> It seems hypocritical to demand that you have a voice in the
> political system while denying that voice to others on the basis of their
> religious beliefs.

I don't deny them their belief, only the basing of policy on them. As has
been mentioned previously, we're NOT a theocracy, no matter how much the
various sects try to cram it up out behinds.

> Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
> of view.

Wrong.

[Paul Sengupta]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> One of the common causes of suicide is a terminal medical condition;
> suicide in that situation *reduces* medical bills.

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/10_14b/briefs/187008-1.html

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > >
> > > > Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions
have
> > > > nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?
> > >
> > > My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.
> >
> > May I suggest that you are deluding yourself? Your views of what is
right
> > and wrong are probably no more rational than those espoused by most
> > religions.
>
> Suggest anything you want, but until religion is based on reason instead
of
> faith, don't talk to me about rationality.
>
> > It seems hypocritical to demand that you have a voice in the
> > political system while denying that voice to others on the basis of
their
> > religious beliefs.
>
> I don't deny them their belief, only the basing of policy on them. As has
> been mentioned previously, we're NOT a theocracy, no matter how much the
> various sects try to cram it up out behinds.
>
> > Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
> > of view.
>
> Wrong.

You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as you
do in yours.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> > > Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
> > > of view.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as
you
> do in yours.
>
Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > > Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
> > > > of view.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> >
> > You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as
> you
> > do in yours.
> >
> Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
> terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...

All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply on
the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance bordering on
fanaticism. You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > >
> > Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
> > terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...
>
> All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply on
> the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance bordering
on
> fanaticism.

And nothing I've said indicates I want to deny them a voice. What we cannot
tolerate is trying to foist a non-objective view of morality into the
politcal process, whether it's the religion of the Bible or of Marxism.

> You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
> fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

Until you realize the difference between a belief and a DISBELIEF, between
one based on faith and one based on evidence, you can take those aspersions
and stick them where the sun don't shine. Try digging outside the sources
targeting the so called "choir".

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > >
> > > Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
> > > terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...
> >
> > All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply
on
> > the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance
bordering
> on
> > fanaticism.
>
> And nothing I've said indicates I want to deny them a voice. What we
cannot
> tolerate is trying to foist a non-objective view of morality into the
> politcal process, whether it's the religion of the Bible or of Marxism.
>
> > You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
> > fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.
>
> Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and
> more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
wives
> tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
> religionist have been spouting for centuries.

No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more objective
than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales, try
looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for centuries.

>
> Until you realize the difference between a belief and a DISBELIEF, between
> one based on faith and one based on evidence

I am not sure that you realize the difference yourself. Allow me to
illustrate. Perhaps you believe it is wrong to kill in order to take things
that do not belong to you. What evidence do you have that it is wrong to do
that? Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I am not sure that you realize the difference yourself. Allow me to
> illustrate. Perhaps you believe it is wrong to kill in order to take
things
> that do not belong to you. What evidence do you have that it is wrong to
do
> that? Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you
would
> consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

You can't be serious. Our lawbooks are filled with faith-based imposition
of morality. From blue laws restricting what kinds of businesses can
operate when, to laws governing sexual conduct between two consenting
adults, to the latest hot topic regarding gay marriage.

Tom is all wet trying to claim atheism isn't a religon, of course. It's
every bit a religion as any other belief that has no factual proof to
support it. No one's proven there is a God, but neither has anyone proved
there isn't one. An atheist is taking the belief of a lack of a God every
bit on faith as a Christian takes the belief of existence of God on faith.

People will disagree on what sorts of actions have victims and what sorts
don't, of course, and I won't be surprised if you don't think my examples of
faith-based imposition of morality aren't examples at all. Suffice to say I
will never agree with you that they aren't, and I feel strongly that we
shouldn't have laws like those that don't involve an actual victim and serve
only to impose one person's arbitrary rules of conduct on another.
Invariably those laws always turn out to have their basis in some Christian
belief, rather than a demonstrable harm one person does to another.

Pete

[BllFs6]

>Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
>consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

How about not being able to able to buy beer on sunday morning?

If that aint a religous based law I dont know what is...

Blll

[David Brooks]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> > > You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
> > > fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.
> >
> > Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more
and
> > more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
> wives
> > tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
> > religionist have been spouting for centuries.
>
> No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
> morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more
objective
> than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales,
try
> looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for
centuries.

But I think there are parts of this discussion that are foundering on
semantics. I'd assert that there are many people have deep reasons for
acting morally, with roots that are almost ineffable but have nothing to do
with the various belief systems that we commonly think of as religions. If
the root is pure humanism, or the belief that what we call God is an
immanent creation of the entire human experience - I suppose you could call
those religions because they involve some non-rational basis (hence the
semantic confusion). You could also construct a Darwinian derivation of
morals, where the organism that is struggling to survive is the society, and
an ethical code (one we would recognize as such) turns out to be a positive
adaptation.

I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying
threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing to
the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life? Or do
you at least require some externally existent (in some sense) and
influential spiritual force? How about the internally located forces of
Buddhism? Do you deny the possiblity of secular humanism being a valid
wellspring of morals, even if it happens to lead to a secular St Francis?

If you say a humanist can't be ethical or moral, I'm starting to object. If
you say a humanist can act ethically or morally, but what matters is that
they aren't moral inside: well, I've heard that assertion and I don't buy
it. Maybe it's a question of definition again.

-- David Brooks

[Tom Sixkiller]

>Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
>consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

Restrictions on abortion.
Laws against sodomy.
Laws against unmarried couples living together.
Prohibition
Drug laws
The original calls for government welfare in the US (1890's)
....
Hell, anything out of the mouth of Pat Robertson or Pat Buchannan...

[Tom Sixkiller]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > > You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
> > > > fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.
> > >
> > > Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more
> and
> > > more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
> > wives
> > > tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
> > > religionist have been spouting for centuries.
> >
> > No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
> > morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more
> objective
> > than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales,
> try
> > looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for
> centuries.

Such as? For some reason their words don't get out that much...something
about holy wars and purges...

>
> But I think there are parts of this discussion that are foundering on
> semantics.

Quite so. CJ doesn't comprehend what FAITH is (the acceptance of something
based on NO evidence, or even things counter to evidence) which is NOT the
way to invoke policy.

> I'd assert that there are many people have deep reasons for
> acting morally, with roots that are almost ineffable but have nothing to
do
> with the various belief systems that we commonly think of as religions.

And that's fine as long as they keep it to themselves. Religions are beliefs
primarily based on what we often call "superstitions" and revelations.


> If
> the root is pure humanism, or the belief that what we call God is an
> immanent creation of the entire human experience - I suppose you could
call
> those religions because they involve some non-rational basis (hence the
> semantic confusion).

Yeah...IF.

>You could also construct a Darwinian derivation of
> morals, where the organism that is struggling to survive is the society,
and
> an ethical code (one we would recognize as such) turns out to be a
positive
> adaptation.

Yeah, you could, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny either.

>
> I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying
> threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing
to
> the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life?

I'd say "most definitely"...for one thing, religion comes from human minds,
whether they want to call it a "revelation" or "too much pizza before bed".

> Or do
> you at least require some externally existent (in some sense) and
> influential spiritual force?

That'd be fine if we want to mimic the Middle East and turn humankind back
3000-500 years and have the high priest or Plato's "Philosophy Kings".


>How about the internally located forces of
> Buddhism? Do you deny the possiblity of secular humanism being a valid
> wellspring of morals, even if it happens to lead to a secular St Francis?
>
> If you say a humanist can't be ethical or moral, I'm starting to object.

I'm with you.

> If
> you say a humanist can act ethically or morally, but what matters is that
> they aren't moral inside: well, I've heard that assertion and I don't buy
> it. Maybe it's a question of definition again.

Not even definitions; CJ's trying to lump counter arguments into a slot
(humanism...in the context of modern day secular humanism, which I find just
about as dense as faith/revelations) that he feels comfortable with. but
knows very little about in reality.

[C J Campbell]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying
> threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing
to
> the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life?

Quite the contrary. I certainly agree that a humanist or other ethicist can
have ethics or morals without appealing to Deity, Christian or otherwise. My
point is that these ethics and morals are not necessarily more rational than
those derived from religion.

After all, if one argues that a god or gods, for whatever reason, wants to
'improve' humanity and prevent humans from harming themselves and each
other, then any 'commandments' emanating from such beings would tend to be
beneficial. An agnostic ethicist might come up with similar 'commandments'
for similar reasons.

Hence, where a religionist might say that buying a beer on Sunday violates
the commandments of God, an agnostic ethicist might decide that it is
beneficial to society overall to have at least one day a week where people
are not subjected to public drunkenness. Similar arguments can be made on
both sides concerning abortion, or any other issue supposedly of concern
only to the religious. You often find religious individuals, even those who
supposedly belong to the same sect, on both sides of an issue like that. You
find the same thing of humanists. In the end it comes down to faith -- a
belief of what is right or wrong without any real evidence to support it.
After all, it can be argued that the survival of the human race would be a
bad thing, and you will find both religious people and humanists who will in
fact strongly assert that very position.

But what is the real difference between the two positions? An atheist must
assume that we are nothing more than random sacks of chemicals. Our actions
must necessarily be of almost infinitely small consequence to the universe.
What does it matter what happens to any of us? Why should we care about
ourselves, let alone others? The religionist answers that we care because we
are commanded to. The ethicist answers that we care for evolutionary
reasons. The real difference comes down to free will. The religionist
believes in free will and personal responsibility. The atheist in the end
must say that free will is, at best, an illusion -- just as the development
of our individual species is guided by the dead hand of natural selection,
so the development of our society is guided by the dead hand of the
collective menes. Personal responsibility is a sham and merely a convenience
for the operation of the menes.

It seems contradictory to me to say that on the one hand religion stifles
freedom and on the other to deny that freedom exists at all, yet not only do
many humanists take this position, so do many religions. If the religious
person should have any advantage at all over the secular humanist, it is
that the religious person should be more pro-active in seizing control of
our evolutionary destiny social development. The reason most religions have
not done that is that they are more rooted in Medieval philosophy than in
any real belief in God. They are in fact rooted in secularism rather than in
faith. The religions of the world are in some respects more atheistic than
even the atheists, often without the tempering influence of humanism. If
these religions are sensitive to the humanists' accusations that they are
more interested in accumulating wealth and power than they are in actually
improving humanity, it is because those charges have considerable merit.
Even their creeds describe God in terms little better than outright deism;
often they are much worse. Their vision of God is so impossibly
contradictory that they have practically defined a belief in God out of
existence. I believe that many atheists are much closer to God than they
realize, just as many religious individuals are much further away from God
than they realize.

Viktor Frankl pointed out that there are really only two kinds of people --
those that derive meaning in life from their relationships with others and
those that derive meaning in life from only from the power and control they
exercise over others. I think you will find both types of people in all
religions as well in all varieties of secularists.

I have to admit that I enjoy this discussion, even though it is off topic. I
would not ordinarily have bothered, but any suggestion that religious views
have no place in the political landscape strikes me as too dangerous to go
unchallenged. It is that kind of thinking that leads to concentration camps
and genocide.

[David Brooks]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these
non-flying
> > threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing
> to
> > the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life?
>
> Quite the contrary. I certainly agree that a humanist or other ethicist
can
> have ethics or morals without appealing to Deity, Christian or otherwise.
My
> point is that these ethics and morals are not necessarily more rational
than
> those derived from religion.
....
> But what is the real difference between the two positions? An atheist must
> assume that we are nothing more than random sacks of chemicals. Our
actions
> must necessarily be of almost infinitely small consequence to the
universe.
> What does it matter what happens to any of us? Why should we care about
> ourselves, let alone others? The religionist answers that we care because
we
> are commanded to. The ethicist answers that we care for evolutionary
> reasons.

No, I think that's a mischaracterization, although I'll struggle to find the
right pithy words. But while doing so I'll hand a freebee to your side of
the argument, Chris. The many people today who are areligious but moral and
ethical (there are many in Europe, for example) are practicing a form of
secular humanism whether they like it or not. This makes secularism look
good, because it is coming up with good results (hey, I know that's a value
judgement, but let's assume we all agree on basic definitions of goodness;
we seem to; even we liberals aren't all moral relativists). The challenge to
that view is that we are living in a moment of history where, even if
Christianity is dying in some societies, the results of the, forgive me,
indoctrination brought about by its teachings are still strong influences in
the society. To be concrete, my grandmother and all my elementary school
teachers were Golden Rule Christians, so how can I behave otherwise; I got
wired. How long can that meme survive without the influence of an externally
applied Spirit? I don't know. There is scant opportunity to look for an
answer by studying historically pagan societies that are otherwise parallel.

> Viktor Frankl pointed out that there are really only two kinds of
people --
> those that derive meaning in life from their relationships with others and
> those that derive meaning in life from only from the power and control
they
> exercise over others. I think you will find both types of people in all
> religions as well in all varieties of secularists.

Many Christians are perfectly clear that there is at least a third kind:
those that derive meaning in life from their relationship with Jesus. Today
it often seems to be a personal buddy relationship, so it might resolve to
Frankl's first group. But there is a more traditional mystical relationship,
often found in the monastery, that I think is genuinely different.

> I have to admit that I enjoy this discussion, even though it is off topic.
I
> would not ordinarily have bothered, but any suggestion that religious
views
> have no place in the political landscape strikes me as too dangerous to go
> unchallenged. It is that kind of thinking that leads to concentration
camps
> and genocide.

Sorry, I must side with Tom on this one, although with less vituperation,
and with the caveat I referred to above: maybe contemporary secular views
are religious views we can't shake.

I hope you don't object to the trimming: I just wanted to respond in
specific places.

-- David Brooks

[Rob Perkins]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>In Utah, until just a few years ago, you couldn't win office unless you were
>Mormon.

You might want to mention that to Dee Dee Corradini.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>
>Quite so. CJ doesn't comprehend what FAITH is (the acceptance of something
>based on NO evidence, or even things counter to evidence) which is NOT the
>way to invoke policy.

!!

Just as a point of order here, I'll point out that CJ's definitions of
FAITH (and mine, too) don't even approach the straw man Tom has set up
here.

Interestingly enough, (and anecdotally so) I can't remember if I did
it here or in another forum, but I once took pains once to post the
definitions of faith that Mormons use, and their approach to faith,
only to have my atheist interlocutor deny that the definition could
apply, because it was in a book of scripture, and wasn't properly in
the dictionary. To him, I wasn't "speaking English". In other words,
he didn't answer the questions raised by the different definition.

It looked to me like a stubborn dogmatic expression of (Tom's
definition of) faith, to me, at the time.

Rob

[Bushy]

What does everyone do when the bloody passengers start talking religion?
;<)
Peter

[H. Adam Stevens]

hand 'em a joint and throw 'em out the door

"Bushy" > wrote in message
...
> What does everyone do when the bloody passengers start talking religion?
> ;<)
> Peter
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Bushy" > wrote in message
...
> What does everyone do when the bloody passengers start talking religion?
> ;<)
> Peter
>
>

It is normal on my flights. In fact, the passengers usually start praying
about the time I start engines.

[BllFs6]

>It is normal on my flights. In fact, the passengers usually start praying
>about the time I start engines.

Reminds me of the old joke...i'll keep it short and sweet


A bus (or pilot in this case) and a preacher reach the pearly gates at the same
time...pilot gets a meeting with god while preacher doesnt...preacher isnt
happy

St Peter explains.....when you preached people slept......when he flew people
PRAYED.....

take care

Blll

[SelwayKid]

"Bushy" > wrote in message >...
> What does everyone do when the bloody passengers start talking religion?
> ;<)
> Peter
I dunno...ask them to take it outside? <g>

[Anton Ish]

Hope I had a video camera and sell it to One of those real video shows
on television?


>A pilot was recently faced with it when an 84 year old man decided to
>unstrap and get out of the front cockpit of a biplane and plunged to
>his death. The pilot was unable to stop him.
>What would you do?

[Troy Towner]

That is not the "whole story"... Let me say it has a little more
background..
If you would like a copy of the report i can grab it for you online... Email
me

"Anton Ish" > wrote in message
...
> Hope I had a video camera and sell it to One of those real video shows
> on television?
>
>
> >A pilot was recently faced with it when an 84 year old man decided to
> >unstrap and get out of the front cockpit of a biplane and plunged to
> >his death. The pilot was unable to stop him.
> >What would you do?
>
>