Where are the armed pilots?

(Brien K. Meehan) wrote in
om:

Judah wrote in message
. ..

snip

Perhaps that has provided the hint that innocent people can be shot
dead while they walk down the street.

That's true. It's always been true.

Perhaps, then, it is too risky to walk down the street.

That's absurd. Only an idiot would draw (or suggest) that as a
logical conclusion.

Of course it's absurd. That's my point. It is no more or less absurd than
the OP who drew the conclusion that it is too risky to fly on an airplane
without an armed pilot, due to the hint that was provided on 9/11.

snip

So, maybe it wasn't a terrorist, but it was some other flavor of
criminal. Who? Is this incident documented somewhere? I'd like to
read more about it.


Here's one. It's not the same story that I alluded to in my earlier post,
but the point is the same. The OP would probably draw the following
conclusion: It's not safe to eat in restaurants because you might be shot
by a mobster if you don't like the entertainment.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast....reut/index.ht
ml

Go ahead and live your life in fear.

Uh, no, thanks, I'll just continue to be free and happy as I have
been.

I know of many people today who are living in fear because of the recent
incidents. They listen to these wonderful stories that the media tells, and
believe it's Armageddon and their life is in imminent danger. They run
around in a panic telling everyone to stay out of their local Town Hall
building because it could be a terrorist target. They think that the entire
world, terrorists, mobsters, and all, revolve around them.

They live in a delusional, self-serving, state of constant panic, fearing
the one and only thing in life that is guaranteed - Death.

I prefer freedom.

Based on this post, I have to wonder if you know what that means.


I believe you either read my post out of context, or you misread it
altogether. Perhaps this approach is more direct and will better clarify my
opinion.

Not that my opinion is so important in the overall scheme of things...

Judah wrote in message .. .

Of course it's absurd. That's my point. It is no more or less absurd than
the OP who drew the conclusion that it is too risky to fly on an airplane
without an armed pilot, due to the hint that was provided on 9/11.

That compares apples and oranges. These analogies make no sense.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast....reut/index.ht
ml

One interesting thing about this incident is that it took place in New
York City, where only the criminals are allowed to have guns.

I believe you either read my post out of context, or you misread it
altogether. Perhaps this approach is more direct and will better clarify my
opinion.

I think I read it just fine, but you're offering badly twisted logic
as a basis for equating vigilance with paranoia or cowardice. In real
life, it doesn't work that way.

Not that my opinion is so important in the overall scheme of things...

I'm glad that you're sharing it. :-)

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
om...
Judah wrote in message
.. .

Of course it's absurd. That's my point. It is no more or less absurd
than
the OP who drew the conclusion that it is too risky to fly on an
airplane
without an armed pilot, due to the hint that was provided on 9/11.

That compares apples and oranges. These analogies make no sense.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast....reut/index.ht
ml

One interesting thing about this incident is that it took place in New
York City, where only the criminals are allowed to have guns.

And NYC is the location of the fire bomb that killed 47 in the night club.