Originally Posted by
WhitePlains
Yes, but the fact remains that an involuntary act is much likely to find some flexibility
Much likely? Yes. But you can't exclude it won't. To maximize chance it will be accomodated, many excellent pieces of advice have been given in this thread. For example, apologizing in advance for snoring, or asking to be nudged if you're disturbing other. Good behaviour often causes better behaviour by others, and you'll find that educated people won't disturb you even if you've asked to be nudged/woken up beforehand.
Especially if you've asked beforehand.
People snore and hence are rude? You really have lost it.
No, people snore and some among them are rude, for example, by doing nothing to mitigate the inconvenience to others. Or answering rudely along the line of "you've no right to silence" when someone remarks that they could change their sleeping position. And some of their neighbour aren't better and will nudge them inconsiderately.
People snore because they have a condition: that they did not wish upon themselves. That is why some slack is to be cut towards them: that is the main objective of my argument. My remark indeed struck a chord: "imitation in the best form of flattery".
You really love not reading other`s replies before jumping in, don`t you. I categorically stated that leave the snorer and the nudger to their own devices and actions. If the nudger wants to nudge and the snorer wants to kick back: fine with me. If the nudger decides not to nudge: fine again. But your sermons that all snorers are on the wrong is what the crux of the issue is.
Now that I clarified your misunderstanding, it looks like we're all agreeing then. To be clear once more: when I say that people can be killed by a car whenever they cross a road and should be careful, I am not advocating running over pedestrians, and I am not saying that people who get ran over deserved it.
Yes, you are advocating violence, by pointing out the most aggressive solution to the problem. I do not hear you say: first try to change your seat and then, if not possible on that flight, then nudge. You have always been pretty agrresive and gung ho with your solutions. That leads to violence. You say that you are a `civil`person: are you really...
Saying that some people won't (even if they should) try to find the best solution is not the same thing as "advocating violence". Especially when the worst thing that I am supposed to advocate is something as benign as a nudge or a remark.
You don't hear me saying any advice to neigbours of snorers because I am not giving advice to non-snorers here. I am giving advice to fellow snorers: it's disturbing, couples are divorcing over snoring problems, Pucci Galores are throwing husbands out of the bed over snoring problems, and it's sad, but some people will (over)react --- and telling them "you've no right to absolute silence" doesn't strike me as the best way to ensure a the best
modus vivendi for everyone involved.
When you mentioned first that non-snorer should try other solutions first, I answered you that they should, indeed, do that and that FA should do their best to relocate them in that case, whenever possible. How clearer could I be?
FYI I do not snore, but unlike yosu I am a human being with some civility towards others.
I think there is no point in discussing with you anymore.
You are advocating a communist pinko regime where everyone must conform or perish. Your ideas reveal an inconsiderate and intolerent person.
Interesting...
When you say that the snorers should not expect others not to nudge them. Post 36 : snorers should know they risk to be put near someone who's bothered by snoring and who will make their flight miserable. a clear case of keep out snorers.
No. Non-snorers should know they risk to be seated by someone who will make them miserable for any reason by their bad behaviour: do you think it's a clear case of keeping out non-snorers as well? Planes would suddently be very empty