 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2005Drunk jet pilots get 2 1/2 and 5 years in prison
This is great but why don't we take the same attitude with drunk drivers on the highways? Why do we have both a prez and a vp with convictions for DUI? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8662857/ July 21: Updated: 8:40 p.m. ET July 21, 2005 MIAMI - Two airline pilots who got behind the controls while drunk drew sentences Thursday of 2½ years and five years in prison. Thomas Cloyd, 47, of Peoria, Ariz., and co-pilot Christopher Hughes, 44, of Leander, Texas, settled into the cockpit of a Phoenix-bound America West jetliner in 2002 after a night of heavy drinking at a sports bar. They were arrested before the plane took off but after it had pushed away from the gate. They were later fired and were found guilty June 8 of operating an aircraft while drunk. (snip) The pilots had been at the bar up until about six hours before their departure time; federal rules say pilots cannot drink in the eight hours before a flight. Police stepped in after screeners smelled alcohol on their breath. Tested hours later, their blood-alcohol levels were above Floridas 0.08 percent limit for drunken driving, which includes aircraft, according to testimony. Their levels were probably much higher when they were in the cockpit, the experts said. Beer, wine and a martini Testimony showed that Cloyd and Hughes ran up a $122 tab and drank seven 34-ounce glasses and seven 16-ounce glasses of beer over six hours at the bar. At dinner before that, they had wine and Cloyd drank a martini, prosecutors said. The pilots had argued at trial that they were not drunk. They also contended they were not in control of their Airbus 319 carrying 117 passengers and crew because it was being towed by a ground crew when police ordered the jet back to the gate. Prosecutor Hillah Katz called that argument an insult. > This is great but why don't we take the same attitude with drunk > drivers on the highways? Why do we have both a prez and a vp with [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > (snip) I don't agree with this decision at all. It was right that the pilots were fired, as they clearly violated federal pilot rules by drinking within the 8 hours before takeoff. They should have known that they would lose their jobs for that But the evidence in this criminal trial was weak, at best. Nobody knew what the BAC level of the pilots was when the plane was pushed away from the gate. At best, they could say that the pilots were -probably- over .08, which is the limit in Florida (where they were supposed to take off, apparently). Also, the prosecution couldn't claim that the pilots were ever in control of the airplane. If there was a criminal offense of "ATTEMPTED DUI", then that might have applied in this case. MIGHT have applied. But then again, we're back to the problem of nobody knew what the BAC level was at the time of the "attempt". So not even "attempted" DUI could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentences seem awfully harsh, considering that there was gobs of reasonable doubt in this case. The plane never flew. The pilots never controlled the airplane, at all. It wasn't known if the pilots were drunk at the time of their arrest. Even if the BAC at arrest time was over .08, that doesn't necessarily mean that the pilots were incapable of safely flying to Phoenix. .08 is way too low to be called "drunk" by any reasonable thinking person. (before someone gets smart, I don't drink, at all, ever) Also, flying is a lot easier than driving. If someone could have told me that the pilots had a BAC of .16 (for example), I still would have boarded the airplane. Large commercial jets practically fly themselves, anyway. Any pilot who's reasonably experienced and not PASSED OUT drunk could probably manage to fly safely halfway across the country. No sweat! But the odd thing about this is, at time of boarding, the BAC level of the pilots was not known. Overall, these sentences seem very harsh, considering that the prosecution was nowhere near proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They were fired. That's what they deserved. Several years in prison, also? No, that's not called for. IMHO -Dave > Even if the BAC at arrest time was over .08, > that doesn't necessarily mean that the pilots were incapable of safely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > themselves, anyway. Any pilot who's reasonably experienced and not PASSED > OUT drunk could probably manage to fly safely halfway across the country. You obviously know nothing about what it takes to actually take off and land an aircraft. And you admit that you don't know anything about being drunk. And if you get into any aircraft where the left-seater is at 0.16, you're a complete idiot. Commercial pilots know exactly what the rules are. The fact they *willfully* placed their passengers in danger by ignoring the rules is cause enough to put them in prison. I don't think the sentences are long enough. E.P. On 7/22/05 6:22 PM, in article 1122049326.874343.39930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, >> Even if the BAC at arrest time was over .08, >> that doesn't necessarily mean that the pilots were incapable of safely [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > E.P. Agreed, and my father and brother are commercial pilots and can't believe they were so dumb. ej > You obviously know nothing about what it takes to actually take off and > land an aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > E.P. I didn't say I don't know anything about being drunk. Fact is, I haven't had a single drink since it was legal for me to drink. That doesn't mean I have NEVER had alcohol. Nor does it mean that I've never had TOO MUCH alcohol. Why do you believe that the passengers were in danger? Yeah, they might have been in danger. But there aren't enough facts known to make that determination. So what makes you think the passengers were in danger? You're just guessing, aren't you? The only fact known in this case is that the pilots violated federal rules by drinking within 8 hours of when they were supposed to fly. For that, they were fired. Seems reasonable. Jail also? Not reasonable, given the known facts, or lack thereof. -Dave > > You obviously know nothing about what it takes to actually take off and > > land an aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > they were fired. Seems reasonable. Jail also? Not reasonable, given the > known facts, or lack thereof. -Dave I understand your point, Dave, but I think that what you're forgetting is that those pilots were working, in effect, for the passengers on that airplane. When I buy a plane ticket, I expect that the pilots have obeyed the rules that they agreed to obey. If they aren't supposed to drink 8 hours before a flight, then I expect that they won't. Your main argument seems to be that they probably could have flown just fine. The problem is that society has a right to draw a line, as it were, in the sand. Some people can operate a car just fine at .10 BAC, while others struggle cold sober. But we have to have a point that we can agree on is the point that it's not acceptable to try. And just because he turns out fine the thousands of times a day that people drive above .08 BAC doesn't make it okay. While I agree that 5 years may seem harsh, I would suggest that it's an excellent warning to anyone considering violating the fly rules and getting in the cockpit of a piece of machinery that could kill over 100 people. scooter34 > While I agree that 5 years may seem harsh, I would suggest that it's an > excellent warning to anyone considering violating the fly rules and > getting in the cockpit of a piece of machinery that could kill over 100 > people. And if they crash the plane in a populated area, they could kill thousands. The sentences seem about right to me. Ted's quaint notion that they only drank within 8 hours of flying ignores the BAC - to have a BAC of .08, you've been drinking more recently than 8 hours ago. > > While I agree that 5 years may seem harsh, I would suggest that it's an > > excellent warning to anyone considering violating the fly rules and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > drank within 8 hours of flying ignores the BAC - to have a BAC of .08, > you've been drinking more recently than 8 hours ago. Well.... they could have been near death when they quit drinking 8 hours prior... nate (stop typing so loud!) On 7/22/05 7:21 PM, in article LW9Ee.2400$0C.1634@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote: >> While I agree that 5 years may seem harsh, I would suggest that it's an >> excellent warning to anyone considering violating the fly rules and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > drank within 8 hours of flying ignores the BAC - to have a BAC of .08, > you've been drinking more recently than 8 hours ago. Agreed. ej > I understand your point, Dave, but I think that what you're forgetting > is that those pilots were working, in effect, for the passengers on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > scooter34 I would suggest that getting FIRED is a pretty good warning, also. I know if I was a pilot, I wouldn't risk drinking a few hours before a flight. I don't drink anyway, but if I did, I would follow the rules. These pilots screwed up, no doubt about it. They were rightfully punished by losing their jobs. They broke a rule. All else is speculation. Since when does someone go to prison because we "think" they might be guilty of something? I know the emotional reaction is "OMIGOD THEY WERE FLYING DRUNK! LOCK THEM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!!!" Those aren't the facts of the case, though. All that was proven is that they broke a rule. A rule for which they were FIRED, because they broke the rule. While I could somewhat agree that someone flying drunk deserves prison time, I think it's sad when someone goes to prison based on mere speculation. The emotional side says GOOD!, the logical side says ummmm, Hey, Wait a inute! -Dave > I would suggest that getting FIRED is a pretty good warning, also. I know > if I was a pilot, I wouldn't risk drinking a few hours before a flight. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > All that was proven is that they broke a rule. A rule for which they were > FIRED, because they broke the rule. They were in the cockpit, ready to fly that plane. They had taken possession of it. They weren't there to do anything BUT fly the plane. Duh! Here's an analogy. Let's say you are drunk. In most jurisdictions, if you get in your car and you have the keys, you are guilty of drunk driving. You haven't actually put the key in the ignition, or started it, much less left the parking lot. But none the less, because you are in the vehicle, with the keys, ready to operate it, the law sees that you are clearly there to drive the thing. Same thing here. We aren't speculating when we say they were going to fly the plane drunk. They were legally drunk, they were in the cockpit, pushing away from the gate and about to make a scheduled flight. None of this is speculation, it's all hard facts. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would have happened if nobody had said anything - you think they were going to get to the runway and suddenly decide to not fly the plane? Bo Raxo > We aren't speculating when we say they were going to fly the plane drunk. > They were legally drunk, they were in the cockpit, pushing away from the > gate and about to make a scheduled flight. None of this is speculation, > it's all hard facts. Really? Then you seem to know more about this case than the prosecuting attorneys did. Maybe you could enlighten us. What was the BAC of the pilots at the time that they boarded the airplane? Keep in mind that BAC levels can change up OR down over time. So while it's unlikely that the pilots were legally sober when -someone else was pushing the plane around-, it's still possible that they could have legally flown the airplane. It's possible. Not likely, but possible. Now go research "reasonable doubt". Just thinking that someone is probably guilty is NOT enough to convict. Our justice system is intentionally biased to allow some criminals to "walk" so that no innocent people will be unjustly punished. Not one. That's why this case is a clear failure. I'm saying that a drunk pilot should be punished. But this conviction was still wrong. How would you like to go to prison for five years for DUI because a prosecutor could prove that you had several drinks SIX HOURS before you drove your car? Not enough evidence you say? Gee, the prosecutor in this case had nothing else. A BAC level was measured, but not at the time of the alleged offense. Oh, and what if you were just in the car while it was being towed? Again, these pilots weren't charged with ATTEMPTED DUI. -Dave > > We aren't speculating when we say they were going to fly the plane drunk. > > They were legally drunk, they were in the cockpit, pushing away from the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pilots at the time that they boarded the airplane? Keep in mind that BAC > levels can change up OR down over time. Uh, they can only go UP if you consume more alcohol, or if you are digesting alcohol already in your system. Otherwise, normal metabolic processes occur and they go down. So the only way their BAC could have gone up after the push away from the gate is if they had more alcohol in their gastriintestinal tract. Which means that during the course of the flight they would have become *more* drunk. That's a defense? > So while it's unlikely that the > pilots were legally sober when -someone else was pushing the plane around-, > it's still possible that they could have legally flown the airplane. It's > possible. Not likely, but possible. Not unless they were given alcoholic beverages after their arrest. I find this so unlikely as to be beyond a reasonable doubt. >Now go research "reasonable doubt". > Just thinking that someone is probably guilty is NOT enough to convict. Our > justice system is intentionally biased to allow some criminals to "walk" so > that no innocent people will be unjustly punished. Not one. That's why > this case is a clear failure. They were caught red-handed. There is no doubt, not the slightest. > I'm saying that a drunk pilot should be punished. But this conviction was > still wrong. How would you like to go to prison for five years for DUI > because a prosecutor could prove that you had several drinks SIX HOURS > before you drove your car? If I was driving a hundred paying passengers, as part of my job, yeah, a prison term seems about right. And if they had drinks six hours before the flight, then their BAC would not have gone up after the push away from the gate, now would it? They couldn't have possibly been caught any more red-handed. If you were behind the wheel of a car, keys in the ignition, with twice the legal BAC, tehn you would be convicted of DUI. Not attemtped anything, but DUI. I've known two people who were convicted in such scenarios - one had decided to sleep off the booze in her car, the other was sitting in a car, engine turned off, but keys in the ignition and the stereo playing while in the parking lot of a bar. Not even on a public street. Both were arrested for DUI. Both were convicted. Bo Raxo On 7/22/05 9:03 PM, in article SpbEe.2220$Uk3.1271@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote: > I've > known two people who were convicted in such scenarios - one had decided to > sleep off the booze in her car, the other was sitting in a car, engine > turned off, but keys in the ignition and the stereo playing while in the > parking lot of a bar. Not even on a public street. Both were arrested for > DUI. Both were convicted. I believe there is a thread in T.P.D. Where someone describes being arrested for DUI because he was listening to the stereo he had just installed and was sitting in the car. He wasn't planning to go anywhere, as the evening was for a couple of beers and stereo installation. ej >On 7/22/05 9:03 PM, in article >SpbEe.2220$Uk3.1271@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Bo Raxo" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >sitting in the car. He wasn't planning to go anywhere, as the evening was >for a couple of beers and stereo installation. It happens and it's a travesty of justice. It's legislation gone MADD! >ej <snipped> > If I was driving a hundred paying passengers, as part of my job, yeah, a > prison term seems about right. Yes. People who are licensed to operate commercial carriers of any sort must meet a higher standard than the rest of us, AFAIK. Especially when it involves passengers. flick 100785 > I'm saying that a drunk pilot should be punished. But this conviction > was still wrong. How would you like to go to prison for five years [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you were just in the car while it was being towed? Again, these > pilots weren't charged with ATTEMPTED DUI. -Dave This far far far more serious than a driver doing the same thing. They should count themselves fortunate.  SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >> We aren't speculating when we say they were going to fly the plane drunk. >> They were legally drunk, they were in the cockpit, pushing away from the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >it's still possible that they could have legally flown the airplane. It's >possible. Not likely, but possible. Now go research "reasonable doubt". Is it really reasonable to believe that their BAC was STILL RISING 6 hours after they quit drinking? Not only do I think it's unreasonable, I don't believe it's even possible in people physically fit enough to be able to walk and talk and I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I seriously doubt the pilots had to be wheeled onto the plane in wheelchairs and they were too wasted to be able to say anything. Don't they have to talk to the tower before the plane is even pushed back? >Just thinking that someone is probably guilty is NOT enough to convict. Our >justice system is intentionally biased to allow some criminals to "walk" so [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >car while it was being towed? Again, these pilots weren't charged with >ATTEMPTED DUI. -Dave >> I would suggest that getting FIRED is a pretty good warning, also. I >> know [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Bo Raxo What Bo is getting at is called in legal circles the Pater Noster rule. In 1905 or three or somewere in that time the New York Supreme Court was asked to rule on a question of evidence. Defendant in a divorce action was accused of going to a house of ill repute and using the services there in even though there was no evidence of anything occuring. The court held that going in to a house of ill repute was enough evidence. One justice said that he in good conciouns could not assume that the defendant was using the place to say a pater noster (our father). While the plane was handled correctly up until control was taken away from the pilot there was a great danger of an accident. The intent of the law is to remove and punish a person when their conduct endangers the many such as on a commercial aircraft. > What Bo is getting at is called in legal circles the Pater Noster rule. In > 1905 or three or somewere in that time the New York Supreme Court was asked [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that he in good conciouns could not assume that the defendant was using the > place to say a pater noster (our father). The amazing things I learn amidst the crap on Usenet. Wasn't familiar with this term for the concept, thanks! Hilarious that it was named after the Catholic prayer. > > I understand your point, Dave, but I think that what you're forgetting > > is that those pilots were working, in effect, for the passengers on [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > emotional side says GOOD!, the logical side says ummmm, Hey, Wait a > inute! -Dave My emotional reaction isn't "OMG THEY WERE FLYING DRUNK!" It was, OMG they were prevented from flying drunk. I would see firing as more of a punishment if I weren't aware of how many terminations get overturned under arbitration. Plus, their conduct potentially put the passengers of that airline, and anyone in the flight path of that craft, in danger. Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they have been allowed to take off just so you'd feel better about the sentence? You're crossing the line when you say "go to prison based on speculation." What speculation? When the plane is being pushed away from the gate, it's extremely logical to assume that the pilot and co-pilot are planning on flying it. Are you truly going to argue that they weren't going to fly? Even the defense didn't go that far - they just argued that the crime hadn't been commissioned yet, not that there was no attempt to commit the crime. I have always thought that sentences for attempted crimes should be comparable to sentences for "successful" crimes. It's usually not the will of the perpetrator that keeps the act from being completed. (I have a great story about a former co-worker of mine that involves a dress, a large butcher knife, an attempted home invision, and a hero cat that I could use to entertain and outrage you.) scooter34 > Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes > only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they have > been allowed to take off just so you'd feel better about the sentence? If you were convicted of DUI based on no BAC level at the time you were attempting to drive, how would you feel about that? Now imagine that you were going to prison for five years when NOBODY (not even YOURSELF) knew what your BAC level was at the time of the alleged offense. I think it's a good thing that they weren't allowed to fly. I also think it is a BAD thing that they are going to jail based on speculation that they *might* have been trying to fly drunk. Do the cops assigned to airport duty in Florida not have breathalyzers in their cruisers? I'm somewhat surprised that this case wasn't tossed by the judge due to lack of evidence, BEFORE TRIAL. -Dave > > Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes > > only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have breathalyzers in their cruisers? I'm somewhat surprised that this case > wasn't tossed by the judge due to lack of evidence, BEFORE TRIAL. -Dave Dave, Show me ONE case where someone had no BAC at the time they attempted to drive and later (without further ingestion of alcohol) registered above a .08, and I will apologize to you for my complete and total ignorance. My understanding of the metabolism of alcohol is that you ingest it, you metabolize it, your BAC rises. There is fluctuation between breathalyzer and blood readings, which is why there can be differences in the two. The only things I'm aware of that make your BAC rise are metabolism of alcohol already consumed and decomposition. Unless you're claiming those pilots were actually rotting in their seats, I just can't see the scenario you're drawing happening (and decomp doesn't cause a large leap, IIRC.) > Dave, Show me ONE case where someone had no BAC at the time they > attempted to drive and later (without further ingestion of alcohol) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > just can't see the scenario you're drawing happening (and decomp > doesn't cause a large leap, IIRC.) EXACTLY!!! I think it is moronic in the extreme to use a BAC level to determine if someone is legally "drunk" or not. And the BAC levels (as currently set) are themselves extreme, in the sense that a 450 pound man can have a few sips of wine and get in HUGE TROUBLE if he tries to drive home afterwards. But having said that . . . If we are going to use BAC as the only evidence of "drunkenness", so be it. Just remember that BAC can go up AND down over time. So not having BAC level at time of alleged offense is a huge hole in the prosecution's case. While I can agree that the pilots were probably GUILTY, the case against them did not come close to meeting the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Guilty or not, this conviction was just plain wrong, as no evidence existed of any criminal wrong-doing. The prosecution proved that they broke a federal law. For that, they were previously fired, so the efforts of the prosecuting attorneys were rather redundant, in that sense. -Dave On 7/23/05 9:07 PM, in article 42e29562$0$1689$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote: > EXACTLY!!! I think it is moronic in the extreme to use a BAC level to > determine if someone is legally "drunk" or not But that is the rule and as shown earlier, they broke the law by meeting more than one criteria. ej >> Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes >> only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > their cruisers? I'm somewhat surprised that this case wasn't tossed > by the judge due to lack of evidence, BEFORE TRIAL. -Dave Politically, that was never going to happen. The government had to make a clear statement. You may argue that they are scapegots or something, but they, and only they, put themselves into the situation. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time > > Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes > > only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have breathalyzers in their cruisers? I'm somewhat surprised that this case > wasn't tossed by the judge due to lack of evidence, BEFORE TRIAL. -Dave You keep bringing up the 'no BAC level'. My understanding of the case is that the gate attendant smelled alcohol on them, the plane was returned to the gate, they -were- administered BAC at the terminal. I don't recall the reading but any at all is sufficient legally for this case. There is also a known factor for figuring back, e.g., BAC of .05 4 hours after an accident will equate back to a BAC of over legal 4 hours ago. There was tons of evidence, hard facts, that came out a trial. There was no need for 'guessing', 'speculation' or anything else. It was a cut and dried case from the get go. All the trial was about was defense trying to downgrade the penalty. I loved the judges comment when one of them (the 5 year sentence) one said he felt it was unfair. Judge 'What is unfair, Sir, is a plane load of innocents not getting a sober pilot'. That's not an exact quote but it is close. As for 'not operating a plane'. In control and , yes to get really nitty gritty, they -did- operate it. They had to have at least released the brakes, turned on power and such. To claim they weren't operating it is moronic as was very appropriately brought out by the PA and other witnesses. Harry K On 7/22/05 9:00 PM, in article 42e14267$0$21279$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > If you were convicted of DUI based on no BAC level at the time you were > attempting to drive, how would you feel about that? Now imagine that you > were going to prison for five years when NOBODY (not even YOURSELF) knew > what your BAC level was at the time of the alleged offense. Bulls-eye! The fact that not even the pilots themselves knew if they were intoxicated is reason enough for them not to have taken control of the aircraft. You have an obligation to inform your superiors if you are Unable to carry out your duties under the rules. -Not being certain- that you can falls under that rule as well. Also, alcohol processing in a healthy human is known to take place at a given rate. So one can be reasonably certain within a statistical range and given their BAC at testing time what their BAC was at any given point between the time they began drinking until the time they were tested, and further also one can predict time too sobriety. ej On 7/22/05 9:00 PM, in article 42e14267$0$21279$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > I think it's a > good thing that they weren't allowed to fly. I also think it is a BAD thing > that they are going to jail based on speculation that they *might* have been > trying to fly drunk. How many times have you seen an airplane even -come- back to the gate after pushback? It happens very seldom, and sometimes at some airports, aircraft are forced to release the gate because someone else is standing on the taxiway waiting for it. In any case the quotations of Federal law in this thread you to be out of line on this issue. ej >On 7/22/05 9:00 PM, in article >42e14267$0$21279$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >How many times have you seen an airplane even -come- back to the gate after >pushback? I've been on a couple of planes where that happened. They blamed mechanical failure, which is sometimes just an excuse. I suppose the pilots could have suddenly come to their senses and claimed mechanical failure and forced the plane back to the gate. >It happens very seldom, and sometimes at some airports, aircraft are forced >to release the gate because someone else is standing on the taxiway waiting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >ej > >How many times have you seen an airplane even -come- back to the gate after > >pushback? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I suppose the pilots could have suddenly come to their senses and > claimed mechanical failure and forced the plane back to the gate. Well, if my own experience is typical, it happens in about 10% of flights. But maybe I'm just unlucky? The worst I can remember is one flight where we were pushed back. Then pulled back to the gate. Then for whatever reason the plane just SAT THERE, with no engines running. It sat there for about an hour. Remember this was a tightly enclosed airplane in August with NO A/C. All the passengers were sweating profusely. That was about the time I decided I was going to drive as much as possible. But then I kept getting jobs that required frequent airline travel, so that plan didn't work out very well. But yeah, getting pushed away from the gate and then returning does happen quite frequently. -Dave "> Well, if my own experience is typical, it happens in about 10% of flights. > But maybe I'm just unlucky? The worst I can remember is one flight where > we [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > very well. But yeah, getting pushed away from the gate and then returning > does happen quite frequently. -Dave What airline and aircraft type were you on? I no of NONE of the commercial aircraft that don't have a/c. Snow... > What airline and aircraft type were you on? I no of NONE of the commercial > aircraft that don't have a/c. > > Snow... Oh they all have A/C. Problem is, engine has to be running. Or I believe there is a way to power it from the ground, also. I've been on several flights where (on the ground) there was NO A/C. -Dave > > What airline and aircraft type were you on? I no of NONE of the > commercial [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh they all have A/C. Problem is, engine has to be running. Or I believe > there is a way to power it from the ground, also. The so-called 'ground cart'. > I've been on several > flights where (on the ground) there was NO A/C. -Dave I'm trying to recall where the a/c was active before the engines were lit and failing fast. I can even recall a train journey ( on the 'Flying Scotsman' - the 10:00 departure for Edinburgh ) where we were sweltering in the carriage in Kings Cross Station. As soon as we got moving the air chilled nicely. Its simply because a/c needs some power to work it. Graham On 7/24/05 3:45 AM, in article 42E2F2B1.43A331BD@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm trying to recall where the a/c was active before the engines were lit and > failing fast. The AC, if needed, is on and powered by the APU until the engines are started and the electrical bus is changed. ej On 7/24/05 3:09 AM, in article 42e2ea50$0$8030$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote: > Oh they all have A/C. Problem is, engine has to be running. Or I believe > there is a way to power it from the ground, also. I've been on several > flights where (on the ground) there was NO A/C. -Dave They all have what is called an APU or auxiliary power unit which is a small jet engine which turns a generator to provide power. If they are having problems with the electrical busses, it is possible that no power was available on board, and none could be connected externally because the bus carrying the electricity is out of order. In these cases the plane should be off-loaded. ej > On 7/24/05 3:09 AM, in article > 42e2ea50$0$8030$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They all have what is called an APU or auxiliary power unit which is a > small jet engine which turns a generator to provide power. Why do they use jet engines for the APU? SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time > > On 7/24/05 3:09 AM, in article > > 42e2ea50$0$8030$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why do they use jet engines for the APU? Actually, strictly speaking, they're small gas turbines. I expect they use them since they run on the same fuel as the main engines. Graham >> > On 7/24/05 3:09 AM, in article >> > 42e2ea50$0$8030$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Actually, strictly speaking, they're small gas turbines. That's what I thought. They are interested in RPMs, not thrust. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/25/05 4:24 AM, in article 42E44D4D.931F0440@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/24/05 3:09 AM, in article >>> 42e2ea50$0$8030$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Graham Bingo. ej >"> Well, if my own experience is typical, it happens in about 10% of >flights. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >What airline and aircraft type were you on? I no of NONE of the commercial >aircraft that don't have a/c. It really sucks when I have to share my flight with f.cking morons like you. >Snow... >>"> Well, if my own experience is typical, it happens in about 10% of >>flights. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It really sucks when I have to share my flight with f.cking morons > like you. I'm sure they feel the same way about you. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/24/05 12:55 AM, in article zXzEe.12669$je2.1312223@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" <snowbal@sympatico.ca> wrote: > What airline and aircraft type were you on? I no of NONE of the commercial > aircraft that don't have a/c. He said it wasn't turned on. From his description it sounds as if there was a bleed air or a generator problem. ej bleed air problem they would have used a ground cart to supply air, if it was a generator problem the bleed would still work with ground power connected (all until the #1 engine is started). If the systems could not be used in one of these two ways the plane would have been grounded. Snow... Guess DJ is still trying to get answers for this one???? Snow... > bleed air problem they would have used a ground cart to supply air, if it > was a generator problem the bleed would still work with ground power [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Snow... On 7/25/05 9:00 PM, in article YHaFe.1368$q23.326436@news20.bellglobal.com, > Guess DJ is still trying to get answers for this one???? It is EJ, and there was no question. ej On 7/22/05 9:00 PM, in article 42e14267$0$21279$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > Do the cops assigned to airport duty in Florida not > have breathalyzers in their cruisers? I'm somewhat surprised that this case > wasn't tossed by the judge due to lack of evidence, BEFORE TRIAL. -Dave They obviously did not have lack of evidence. In fact, according to the federal law quoted in this thread, they committed the offenses under multiple criteria. And the testimony of the gate agents about smelling booze and seeing intoxicated behavior? And it is likely that the breathalyzers owned by the cops guarding the airport, if indeed they are Miami-Dade police, are assigned to traffic police. ej On 7/22/05 8:40 PM, in article 1122057617.271922.310110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "scooter34" <momofpeanutLiz@netscape.net> wrote: > Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes > only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they have > been allowed to take off just so you'd feel better about the sentence? Interestingly enough, at least at the airline for which my father and brother fly, the drug tests -are- made -after- the flight. ej On 7/22/05 8:40 PM, in article 1122057617.271922.310110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "scooter34" <momofpeanutLiz@netscape.net> wrote: > (I > have a great story about a former co-worker of mine that involves a > dress, a large butcher knife, an attempted home invision, and a hero > cat that I could use to entertain and outrage you.) > > scooter34 Poor kitty! ej On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 42e13453$0$48592$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > They were rightfully punished by losing > their jobs. They broke a rule. No, they broke rules and laws. The rule violations are rightly punished by termination. But it is still a -crime- under the law what they did. And they have to be punished for that as well. There is no double jeopardy here, and no excessive punishment. They knew it was both illegal and against the company rules as well as pilot ethics. ej On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 42e13453$0$48592$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > All else is speculation No. They broke a law. If you and I break a law which coincidentally causes us to lose our employment, say by stealing from the employer, do you think that simple job loss should erase the crime to the point where the law is simply ignored? ej On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 42e13453$0$48592$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > I know the emotional reaction is "OMIGOD THEY WERE FLYING DRUNK! LOCK THEM > UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!!!" Yes, they were, and they were willing to endanger hundreds if not thousands of people by operating a vehicle weighing 150,000 pounds in an an unsatisfactory state of mental awareness. Sounds like a crime worth punishing to me. Should they be able to go to another carrier and get a job? ej On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 42e13453$0$48592$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > Those aren't the facts of the case, though. > All that was proven is that they broke a rule. A rule for which they were > FIRED, because they broke the rule. No, they broke both a rule and a law. Probably more than 1 law, as there is likely a state and a federal crime that was committed. The broke the rule and were fired. They broke the law and were jailed. What is so hard for you to accept here. ej On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 42e13453$0$48592$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > While I could somewhat agree that someone flying drunk deserves prison time, > I think it's sad when someone goes to prison based on mere speculation Did they blow the readings or not? From Channel 4 in Miami's website: "The pilots had been at the bar up until about six hours before their departure time; federal rules say pilots cannot drink in the eight hours before a flight. Police stepped in after screeners smelled alcohol on their breath. Tested hours later, their blood-alcohol levels were above Florida's 0.08 percent limit for drunken driving, which includes aircraft, according to testimony. Their levels were probably much higher when they were in the cockpit, the experts said. Testimony showed that Cloyd and Hughes ran up a $122 tab and drank seven 34-ounce glasses and seven 16-ounce glasses of beer over six hours at the bar. At dinner before that, they had wine and Cloyd drank a martini, prosecutors said." $122 bar tab? 61 dollars a piece? At the bar until six hors before departure? I'll bet they didn't get much sleep, either. Notice Florida's drink drive law includes aircraft. Notice that at test time, hours after arrest in the cockpit they were above .08. Yer defending the indefensible here. ej > While I agree that 5 years may seem harsh, I would suggest that it's > an excellent warning to anyone considering violating the fly rules and > getting in the cockpit of a piece of machinery that could kill over > 100 people. Exactly. They could string them up by their balls for 5 years and it wouldn't be too much penalty. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/22/05 7:04 PM, in article 42e12739$0$28192$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > Why do you believe that the passengers were in danger? It is very difficult under the best of circumstances to fly a commercial aircraft, even under the best of conditions. But if you add drunkenness to traffic and weather,and jet lag with lack of proper sleep, you have pilots unfit to deal with an emergency, incident or accident, and they may even cause one, too. That is how the passengers were in danger. Can I fly you around drunk? Or would you rather have a sober pilot? ej On 7/22/05 7:04 PM, in article 42e12739$0$28192$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > But there aren't enough facts known to make that > determination. So what makes you think the passengers were in danger? > You're just guessing, aren't you? Given they were convicted, at least 12 jurors, a judge and a prosecutor had enough facts. They were in danger because alcohol laden pilots cannot handle emergencies correctly. The plane will actually fly to and land itself at its destination, and a tipsy person could likely push the autopilot buttons in sequence correctly to make this happen, but what happens if something goes wrong? ej > Given they were convicted, at least 12 jurors, a judge and a prosecutor had > enough facts. Tell that to all the prisoners on death row who were later proved totally innocent by DNA evidence pointing to another person who CONFESSED to the crime. A verdict can be wrong. If you don't believe that, review the OJ Simpson and Louise Woodward trials. A guilty verdict does not prove that a crime was committed. Nor does a "not guilty" verdict necessarily mean that no crime was committed. -Dave > > Given they were convicted, at least 12 jurors, a judge and a prosecutor > had [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > crime was committed. Nor does a "not guilty" verdict necessarily mean that > no crime was committed. -Dave I'm inclined to mention those mothers ( well mainly mothers ) in the UK who were found guilty of killing their babies by shaking them. The medical 'evidence' has now been largely discredited and quite substantial numbers of those formerly convicted are being released from prison. A couple of paediatric consultants have come in for heavy criticism over the whole affair and some sanctions have been applied but I don't see how that can ever compare to the distress to their 'victims' whose families have been torn apart. In the USA would a mother found guilty of killing her child likely be executed ? And this was all done in good faith at the time. Graham > I'm inclined to mention those mothers ( well mainly mothers ) in the UK who > were found guilty of killing their babies by shaking them. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Graham Depending on the circumstances of the crime, HELL YES a mother could be EXECUTED in the USA for killing her child. But then, not all states have the death penalty. Still, in states with the death penalty, a conviction for first degree murder can carry the death penalty, regardless of the relationship of the perp to the victim(s). I doubt very much you'd see it in a "shaken baby" case, though. More likely, if a mother shook a baby and the baby later died, it would probably lead to a conviction on manslaughter charges, and some time in prison. Still, it is scary as Hell to read about all the false convictions in the UK for shaken baby. I know we have just as many false convictions in the U.S. for shaken baby syndrome. (probably a lot more) The Louise Woodward case was interesting (on this topic) as it was a UK woman wrongfully convicted of causing the death of a baby in Massachusetts. The injuries that led to the baby's death in that case could have been a result of physical abuse of some sort. But they were more likely caused by an accidental fall of a few feet. The only thing that was proven (by the defense witnesses, and ironically stipulated by a prosecution witness on rebuttal) is that the fatal injury was weeks old before it was discovered. Now, nobody knows exactly what happened to the poor child who died in the Louise Woodward case. The only thing known for certain is that IF the child was abused, it may or may not have been Louise Woodward who abused him, as there was no way to know who (if anybody) was with the child at the exact moment that the skull fracture (probably from an accidental fall) happened. But relating this back to your comments . . . If the evidence was stronger, and the crime was pre-planned, and Massachusetts had a death penalty at the time, this woman (Woodward) from the UK might have been facing the death penalty in the USA for a shaken baby conviction. Yikes. -Dave On 7/22/05 7:04 PM, in article 42e12739$0$28192$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > The only fact known in this case is that the pilots violated federal rules > by drinking within 8 hours of when they were supposed to fly. For that, > they were fired. Seems reasonable. Jail also? Yes, firing is a company punishment. The law had also been broken, and a punishment for that is jail time. ej You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them either do you???? Certain planes and majority of all North American airports have systems that allow the planes to take-off, fly and land themselves. Some even have the equipment to allow the plane to taxi. Not to mention, most engine starts are a single push button operation, and once the NAV computers have aligned (takes about 40 seconds) its push in way points (or pre-loaded FMS flight database) and the plane will do the rest. As for taxiing, its a piece of piss easier then driving a car. Snow... >> Even if the BAC at arrest time was over .08, >> that doesn't necessarily mean that the pilots were incapable of safely [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > E.P. > You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them > either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > database) and the plane will do the rest. As for taxiing, its a piece of > piss easier then driving a car. HAHAHA. Listen to this loonybird defend drunk pilots!!!! > > You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them > > either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > HAHAHA. Listen to this loonybird defend drunk pilots!!!! That's almost as retarded as your defense of drunk senators and pot-head ex-presidents. Hey Loon your wrong AGAIN !!!! I never once defended the pilots... I was defending the statements made as to whether the pilots could still fly the plane, which YES they could have, as the plane will fly by itself. Snow... >> You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control >> them [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > HAHAHA. Listen to this loonybird defend drunk pilots!!!! On 7/23/05 12:53 AM, in article lPeEe.7203$Qi4.921455@news20.bellglobal.com, > Hey Loon your wrong AGAIN !!!! I never once defended the pilots... I was > defending the statements made as to whether the pilots could still fly the > plane, which YES they could have, as the plane will fly by itself. But could they handle an emergency, which is what they are there for. And even one operating a computer drunk is prone to error. On 7/22/05 7:52 PM, in article 1122054739.246516.103020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: >> You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them >> either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > HAHAHA. Listen to this loonybird defend drunk pilots!!!! This is what I can't understand, unless this guy is a drinker and a pilot. ej > You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them > either do you???? > > Certain planes and majority of all North American airports have systems that > allow the planes to take-off, fly and land themselves. But the *don't* take off and land themselves. That's done just as much "by hand" as it has been since Wilbur and Orville did their thing at Kitty Hawk. The systems by which this is done might become automated to a degree, but the decision-makers still sit at the very front of the aircraft. OK, since you want to be contrary, name the airlines and aircraft that use no pilot input from ramp to ramp. E.P. >> You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them >> either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >E.P. Actually, the aircraft in question - the Airbus A-318/319/320/321 series can takeoff and land without input from the pilot. FAA Regulations, however, do not permit that kind of operation, they require a pilot in control during these stages of the flight. This particular series of aircraft was controversial when it was introduced due to design concept of automation taking over from human control. In order to be certified in the United States, Airbus modified several systems to allow greater pilot control of the plane. This became of particular interest after the 1988 crash of an Air France A-320 at Habsheim, France during an airshow. Investigation showed that the aircraft's automated systems were commanding the plane to land during a low pass over the airshow crowd, while the pilot was fighting the computer for control. The end result is that the plane crashed into the forest just beyond the runway, killing three people aboard the jet. The automation is all well and good in certain aspects, but you still need alert persons to monitor the automated functions and take control when necessary. So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time does any good in this situation. The careers of these pilots are over - sending them to jail only means taxpayers have to pay for their housing. These guys have known little in their working life besides flying aircraft, and they aren't going to be able to do it ever again, at least not commercially. They have a future of being Wal-Mart greeters of learning how to say "You want fries with that?" For a pilot, having your wings clipped is worse than any prison term. Being a pilot is not just a job - it's something that gets in your blood, your very nature. You take the sky away from a pilot and you have one of the most humbled people around. > That said, I don't think jail time > does any good in this situation. The careers of these pilots are over > - sending them to jail only means taxpayers have to pay for their > housing. I'm betting the passengers on that plane would disagree. >These guys have known little in their working life besides > flying aircraft, and they aren't going to be able to do it ever again, > at least not commercially. Nonsense. They'll move to another country. Probably within a few years of their being released from prison they will be either commercial pilots or flight instructors in some corner of the world. Bo Raxo >> That said, I don't think jail time >> does any good in this situation. The careers of these pilots are over >> - sending them to jail only means taxpayers have to pay for their >> housing. > >I'm betting the passengers on that plane would disagree. Yeah, well, we're all about vengance and punitiveness in this nation, aren't we? These two idiots aren't going to to "learn" anything in jail, and they are out of their careers. Society is not benefitting by locking them up. >>These guys have known little in their working life besides >> flying aircraft, and they aren't going to be able to do it ever again, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >their being released from prison they will be either commercial pilots or >flight instructors in some corner of the world. They can apply for reinstatement, but something this high-profile isn't likely to get them their tickets back. These guys will never get their careers back - if they are lucky, they may end up as freight dogs in South America. I don't think you really understand the airline industry and how difficult it is to get back in once you've f.cked up. If the FAA pulls your ticket, you're pretty much screwed with everyone who isn't a half-assed banana-hauler operating in a country that doesn't give a sh.t. And a lot of these operations aren't permitted landing rights in the U.S. because drunk pilots are the least of the concerns - planes that fall apart are. These guys are gone - they will never enjoy the income and benefits they once had and sacrificed with a night of partying. On 7/22/05 10:48 PM, in article obm2e19re3cn6clj9afdplgpgupjnue2f8@4ax.com, > would disagree. > > Yeah, well, we're all about vengance and punitiveness in this > nation, aren't we? These two idiots aren't going to to "learn" > anything in jail, and they are out of their careers. Society is not > benefitting by locking them up. Correct. They are being punished for their crimes. ej > So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to > Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time > does any good in this situation. It sends a clear message to any other pilots contemplating drinking before a flight a very clear message - not only will you lose your job, you will lose your freedom. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a flight a very clear message - not only will you lose your job, you will >lose your freedom. Like the death penalty has stopped murder? >>It sends a clear message to any other pilots contemplating drinking before >>a flight a very clear message - not only will you lose your job, you will >>lose your freedom. > >Like the death penalty has stopped murder? Anecdotal data disclaimer applies: I know several, maybe many, that have taken the risk of a DUI more seriously since the company I work for has said that it's grounds for dismissal, or at the very least, a downgrade into a non-driving job. Prior to that the potential fine/jail time alone didn't have the same effect. Just where is the cutoff between several and many? L. >>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Like the death penalty has stopped murder? At least the person murdering won't do it again. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >At least the person murdering won't do it again. Great arguement, and I'm sure you are aware that if you killed every person on the planet, there would be no crime? The fact is the death penalty is not serving as the deterrent its advocates claim it is, and it actually costs more to put someone to death than it does to just let them rot in prison. >>>>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>>>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > it actually costs more to put someone to death than it does to just > let them rot in prison. We aren't discussing the death penalty, loon, we are talking about the prison time deserved by those pilots. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>>>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>>>>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >We aren't discussing the death penalty, loon, we are talking about the >prison time deserved by those pilots. Um, by the nature of your first reply, guess what? We're discussing the death penalty. >>>>>>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>>>>>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Um, by the nature of your first reply, guess what? We're discussing > the death penalty. No, this was brought up by your comment "Like the death penalty has stopped murder?" SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>>>>>The Shadow Knows... <i.am.me.as.you.are.he@the_walrus.com> wrote >in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >No, this was brought up by your comment "Like the death penalty has >stopped murder?" Um, but did I move your hand on the mouse and made you click on "reply"? Why, no, I didn't...how about that? You made it a discussion by replying. See, when I throw something out and nobody replies, it's just something I threw out. When someone replies, then it becomes a discussion. >>>>>>>>The Shadow Knows... <i.am.me.as.you.are.he@the_walrus.com> wrote >>in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > replies, it's just something I threw out. When someone replies, then > it becomes a discussion. You are a kook. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>>>>>The Shadow Knows... <i.am.me.as.you.are.he@the_walrus.com> wrote >in [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >You are a kook. Name-calling - that's a great way to bow out of any discussion, isn't it? >>>>>>>>The Shadow Knows... <i.am.me.as.you.are.he@the_walrus.com> wrote >>in [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Name-calling - that's a great way to bow out of any discussion, > isn't it? It is an observation, loon, nothing more. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>>>>>The Shadow Knows... <i.am.me.as.you.are.he@the_walrus.com> wrote >in [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > >It is an observation, loon, nothing more. Yep, thank you for proving my point. Can't discuss the issue, only throw names out. Oh well, no worries - have a nice day and I'll talk to you later, if I'm that unlucky. On 7/24/05 6:37 AM, in article Xns969CDBEA0C470retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Name-calling - that's a great way to bow out of any discussion, >> isn't it? > > It is an observation, loon, nothing more. No,dave, it is SOP for you when someone dares to disagree with you. You are addicted to your own arrogance. Seek help. ej Eric Johnson <erj66@xs4all.nl> wrote in news:BF091EE3.8D774%erj66 @xs4all.nl: > On 7/24/05 6:37 AM, in article > Xns969CDBEA0C470retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You are addicted to your own arrogance. No, junkie, it is an observation of unbalance in your posts. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message