Originally Posted by
WhitePlains
Good. we agree that who wake others up are not nice people. and good to see that my remark about charter struck a chord that you are using my own words to reply.
We never disagreed about that. Your remark didn't strike a chord, I just mentioned that it goes both ways. People snore and are rude ; if someone doesn't want to meet people, he should charter a plane. I was pointing out that the argument goes both ways, against nudgers and against snorers.
what you are trying to avoid addressing is that snoring is an involuntary action and nudging is a voluntary action. hence the snorer has no choice in the matter, whereas the nudger has.
I don't think it would matter to them in any way. I am not sure the nudger would analyze the motive of the snorer and carefully consider his condition. Reasoning would be along the line : "he's making noise, let's stop the noise". Much more basical. They may not even doing that to inconvenience. As
henkybaby said, nudging is a gentle push in the hope the snorer with shuffle a bit and stop snoring. It's not necessarily a stab designed to wake up the snorer.
You are the one that is talking about keeping snorers off the plane.
No I am not. I am saying that it's unreasonable to expect people not to snore, and that it's unreasonable, on the other hand, to expect that all other people will accept it.
You sure are buddy. It is your position that 'snorers snould not expect to meet nice people'. That is an invitation to get physical and escalate it into violence.
No it's not. Stating there's is a war in Somalia isn't the same thing as advocating Somalians to kill each others. When I mentionned my choice of behaviour (finding other things to do on a plane than sleeping, in order to let others sleep, which I consider to be a civil behaviour), you told me that I was stupid to expect other people to behave ideally. I don't expect it, and my point was that you shouldn't think other people won't nudge you (as it would be ideal behaviour) either. Between civlized people, anyone would try to lessen the nuisance he's imposing on others (regardless of whether it's voluntary or not) or at least apologize for it, and their neighbours should do nothing if they fail and inconvenience them. Most of the time, however, the snorer won't be mindful or apologetic and go to sleep, and his neighbours will nudge/wake them. Note that I don't advocate any of this, just stating that it's in my view the most probable scenario.
I read your initial point as : "If I snore, I snore, if you're near me, tough luck, no one has a right to silence on a plane". You're right: there is no right to silence, and they can't sue you for that. I answered you :
By your line of reasoning, one should wake them up and ask them to stop as there is no right to absolute silence? Expecting other pax to accept not sleeping so the snorer can sleep peacefully is as extreme as expecting the snorer to refrain from sleeping so the other pax can sleep.
My line hasn't changed and is much less confrontational than what you're making it: you shouldn't be surprised if people don't bear with you, especially if you tell them they have no right to silence on a plane (which strikes me as confrontational, or insensitive, even if snoring is uncontrollable). You then threatened nudgers and wakers with lawsuits, which made me think you're overreacting to their behaviour (but maybe I misread you?).
Unlike you I do not put snorers on the wrong and write volumes about how they should not expect civility from others. That kind of sermon is not too practical these days.
Where do I put snorers on the wrong? Some snorers will take steps to avoid disturbing others (there are a few of them), some neighbours will take steps to accomodate them (there are a few of them). Basically, are weonly disagreeing about the proportion of civilized vs uncivilized people in a crowd?