From today's National Post:

http://www.nationalpost.com/features...19/695130.html

FlyerAl. If you want to avoid burning the few remaining bridges you have left on this board, I suggest you reserve your comments on ethnicity, terrorism and war, whether holy or otherwise. Your insipid remarks and insinuations are not appreciated nor appropriate.

If I was a smart terrorist, in addition to recruiting other terrorists with the same ethnicity or religion and to be more effective, I would also be "hiring" or "converting" someone of a different ethnic or religious group to carry out some of the duties.

I think it would be almost impossible to find someone who's willing to commit suicide for their employer unless they were as committed to "the cause" as the terrorists themselves.

Fly Boy, FlyerAl is allowed to give his opinions. Don't be so narrow-minded, read everything and you decide what you think is true. Even if you think he's racist, that's up to him, you are in no position to call him racist.

FlyerAl thanks for the link.

You're welcome Marco

I don't know what all the fuss is about in the first place. All I did was post a link to a National Post article about Air Canada. I didn't even comment nor did I give an opinion about it!

It's simply impossible to please the activist types.

Which "cause" might this be FlyerAl?

Exactly what sort of activists do you consider those who disagree with you?

FlyerAl's opinions are racist. It has nothing to do with what I think, they are by definition racist. I for one will call a spade a spade when I see such statements and will not, by inaction, be seen as approving of these sort unsolicited intolerant remarks. FlyerAl is welcome to take his opinions to other forums, such as the Heritage Front, which may be better suited to his beliefs.

So what if he's racist? I'm not racist, I respect everyone's beliefs AS long as they respect mine, but that's besides the point. He's allowed to contribute to this forum just like you are and just like I am. If you think his posts are racist then you haven't seen anything Fly Boy. Also if you don't want to read them, don't!

FlyerAl: You're allowed to express your opinions so go ahead!

I think it's time that we bring in a moderator here to filter out *unnecessary* posts.

Yes I think we will need a moderator if we continue like this, although the *asterisks* around "unnecessary" suggests a moderator with a limited view, and I don't agree with that.

Either we have a moderator who enforces the FT rules and filters all off-topic posts (which was probably >50% of our happy Canadian discussion before 11/9), or we have no moderator.

The only fair way to filter is based on the published rules, not based on what one or more of the members (or even the vast majority, if in fact that is the case) don't want to see here. [This is a particularly touchy subject for me right now, based on some offline discussions I've heard of].


We really do need to cool down on both sides, and we need to do it now.

Topics like the current one are bad enough, where someone posts a newspaper link, someone else jumps on him, and the ad hominem level goes off the chart immediately. That's bad enough, and I'd suggest that if ignoring a post one finds offensive isn't sufficient, a reply such as "[user], I disagree totally with your comments." would at least not escalate if one must reply.

Even worse is the gleeful dumping on one member in topics that have nothing to do with him (I'm thinking specifically of the discussion on Ken Hamer's article in the G&M, in which FlyerAl's entire body of FT posting is assigned zero value, not once but twice.

Do I agree with FlyerAl's comments most of the time? In the context of this post, it doesn't matter. In this uniquely unmoderated FT forum, he has the right to post them. And we have the right to post in disagreement.

But please please please, let us agree that there will be no more ad hominem remarks directed at other FT members, in either direction (although from my limited memory, I don't recall such a remark ever coming from FlyerAl).

If we do continue down this road, and find ourselves moderated, I for one will not support moderation of only some off-topic posts.

Thanks!
andrew

The biggest problem with the threads that have been attracting such attention and getting everyone riled-up lately, is a-the title & topic of the threads, and b-the content of the initial post.

I personally believe that although the Air Canada board meanders away from matters strictly concerning A�roplan, it is not appropriate to have topics that blatantly single out political, religious, ethnic, or other specific groups in this forum. These sorts of discussions are considered unprofessional in the workplace and are not be tolerated. So what makes it okay to post it here? I say it is not appropriate. This is not a political debating forum. Any moderator we bring-in would hopefully narrow the scope of such discussions and ensure that topics remain in compliance with FT standards of posting, conduct etc.

I do not want to see this turned into a forum hi-jacked by people who are intent on conveying political or other beliefs and opnions, and using FT and this board as a means of so doing. This is the wrong medium to express such views and IMO if people really want to post on FT their opinions about muslims or any other ethnic group, they should pick a more appropriate forum, such as OMNI.

None of us should have to sift through posts on this board that offend us. What I am saying is we need to raise the bar on the "do's and don'ts" of posting. IMO the things FlyerAl (and some others in different forums) has been posting do not belong on this board.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that few of us on this board wish to engage in an indepth political and/or religious dialogue in this forum. But if people like FlyerAl relentlessly persist in posting such topics, it will undoubtedly engage someone and prompt a post in response. And when a post is of an intolerant nature, a response is to be expected and a rebuke is understanable and warranted.

There are atleast another dozen forums that required hundreds of times more moderation on FT. It is absolutely crazy to think we need a moderator here.

Dorian

Here is my two cents... Our nerves are raw from the events of 11 Sep. We have a lot of emotions that are looking for places to hang their hats. I think that we need to refocus and go back to the fundamental reason that we hang around this site. We fly for business and for pleasure. We are passionate about Q miles, upgrades, MLL etc. Let's focus on helping each othermaximize miles, upgrades; let's return to sharing ways to make flying more pleasant and more profitable for mileage accumulation.
The amateur psychologist in me would say that behind a lot of the passion shown in the past days are emotions that are displaced and focused on the wrong issue.
In the past days, there are times that perusing postings is not fun anymore.
So what if occasionaly we get off topic. There is always a wise and sage person who gently and respectfully shepherds us in the right direction.
AC has a great challenge ahead to steer a tought course. We know that they lurk and read. It's time to get back to the business of FT. This is how I will honour the memory of those who died by contributing to positive flying experience.

Fly Boy, how is this newspaper link off-topic? It relates directly to Air Canada and their new security measures. There are no racist remarks or political propaganda in the article. Since you find the article to be personally offensive for whatever reason, I suggest you complain to the editor of the National Post.

FlyerAl,

What's wrong with this topic is not the newspaper article but the topic title -- it's 180 degrees opposite the article.

The title says "Air Canada taking measures to battle 'jihad'" but all I can find at the end of that link is effectively "Air Canada denies targetting Arabs".

Fly Boy,

I happen to think the title of this topic is inflammatory, but there's no excuse for the gratuitous FlyerAl-bashing at www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum5/HTML/003479.html

andrew