Jetliner Lust Attracts F-16s
Feb 14, 2002, 11:51 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Nashville -Past DL Plat, FO, WN-CP, various hotel programs
Programs: DL-MM, AA, SW w/companion,HiltonDiamond, Hyatt PLat, IHF Plat, Miles and Points Seeker
Posts: 11,072
I agree in general that we must sacrifice for the good of the masses. And this would mean we stop the silly security nonsense. We continue to plan for a return of the 9/11 scenario when it is so unlikely to ever happen. Yet, we are spending hundreds of millions, and I get billions on it anyways.
This is silly. Wasteful. And killing our economy.
Feb 15, 2002, 12:10 am
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: BKK, STL, ORD
Posts: 308
So would this be
1. The High Mile High Club;
2. The Mile High High Club;
or
3. Mile High High High High High High Club (since they went multiple times?
and when the plane landed did they land too, or were they still High?
1. The High Mile High Club;
2. The Mile High High Club;
or
3. Mile High High High High High High Club (since they went multiple times?
and when the plane landed did they land too, or were they still High?
Feb 15, 2002, 10:28 am
#21
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,956
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anrkitec:
Whether you realize it or not you have just made precisely the same argument that you criticized another FTer for making in the thread about the absurdity of the current "[a false sense of] security at any cost" mentality.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum.../006380-2.html
The point being made by the FTer in the previous thread and yours here (whether intentional on your part or not) is that as a society we are constantly making choices that benefit the many at the expense of the few. Sometimes those sacrifices involve convenience, sometimes money, sometimes even human life (e.g., if we want to lower highway deaths why not lower the speed limit to 25 mph), and sometimes a combination of all of these.
I again find it curious at best that you feel shooting down a jetliner full of people to be a more reasonable response to a potential terrorist threat than doing away with all of the current security non-sense in exchange for a few reasonable procedures that might actually be effective.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 02-14-2002).]</font>
Whether you realize it or not you have just made precisely the same argument that you criticized another FTer for making in the thread about the absurdity of the current "[a false sense of] security at any cost" mentality.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum.../006380-2.html
The point being made by the FTer in the previous thread and yours here (whether intentional on your part or not) is that as a society we are constantly making choices that benefit the many at the expense of the few. Sometimes those sacrifices involve convenience, sometimes money, sometimes even human life (e.g., if we want to lower highway deaths why not lower the speed limit to 25 mph), and sometimes a combination of all of these.
I again find it curious at best that you feel shooting down a jetliner full of people to be a more reasonable response to a potential terrorist threat than doing away with all of the current security non-sense in exchange for a few reasonable procedures that might actually be effective.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 02-14-2002).]</font>
The other topic I posted under was to someone that was saying he would rather just go back to security pre 9/11 because this security is not convenient for him, and many others. This posting was to someone that things it's absurd that the air force would shoot down a plane headed for a crowded city center. I think both are ridiculous and completely self centered as are most of the anti-security sentiments on these boards.
Feb 15, 2002, 10:29 am
#22
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,956
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AS Flyer:
What I was saying in the last post supports this statement pretty well actually.
The other topic I posted under was to someone that was saying he would rather just go back to security pre 9/11 because this security is not convenient for him, and many others. This posting was to someone that things it's absurd that the air force would shoot down a plane headed for a crowded city center. I think both are ridiculous and completely self centered </font>
What I was saying in the last post supports this statement pretty well actually.
The other topic I posted under was to someone that was saying he would rather just go back to security pre 9/11 because this security is not convenient for him, and many others. This posting was to someone that things it's absurd that the air force would shoot down a plane headed for a crowded city center. I think both are ridiculous and completely self centered </font>
Feb 15, 2002, 10:42 am
#23
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Programs: AA PLT, SPG GLD, PC PLT SPIRE
Posts: 4,531
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tummyg:
So would this be
1. The High Mile High Club;
2. The Mile High High Club;
or
3. Mile High High High High High High Club (since they went multiple times?
and when the plane landed did they land too, or were they still High?</font>
So would this be
1. The High Mile High Club;
2. The Mile High High Club;
or
3. Mile High High High High High High Club (since they went multiple times?
and when the plane landed did they land too, or were they still High?</font>