dup sorry

------------------
"I always think there's a
band, kid..."

[This message has been edited by squeakr (edited 01-17-2001).]

Originally posted by bdschobel:
That's true, but the arguments against eliminating it (which finally happened, of course) centered on safety concerns. Even now, several years later, people bemoan the "additional" deaths that supposedly are occurring because people are allowed to drive faster. (Whether they are actually driving any faster is a matter of debate.)

If you drove Bay Area CA freeways with anuy regularity you would see just what an impact it has had...the mean speed now is closer to 80 than 70....

Squeakr wrote:
Are you sure you didn't mean to say the speed is now closer to 18 mph? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

As a Bay Area freeway driver, it's a rare opportunity when I can drive 80.



[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 01-17-2001).]

Thanks squeakr - I contemplated trying to explain why the title was offensive to me, but decided it wasn't worth the effort or the controversy. But you're right - my point was not that he offended her.

drtravels,

OK, I give up. What else does an airbag do?

Bruce

. . . provides employment for air bag industry employees

(since this thread has gotten way too silly anyway)

OK, since more than one person doesn't get it, I'll try to explain. I would hope someone like Catman who knows a thing or two about journalism could understand the value of shock statements. They get peoples attention.

I specifically put in the inflammatory words "stewardess" and "PMS" since I knew I would get a rise out of people. Not only that, but the words are germane to the subject. There is no way we would have had this many people participate had I chosen weak words for my title. I think it has been a valuable topic for Flyertalkers to share their feelings on the subject.

Additionally, this discussion points out a social problem on Flyertalk and the Internet in general. Some people (newbies in general) discuss things very differently on the Internet than they do in person. I would ask everyone on Flyertalk to participate in this or any other topic as you would in a face-to-face conversation. That way you'll hopefully try to understand each others viewpoint before you flame it.

But the benefit of the Internet is that you can carefully take the time to think about your words before you press Submit. Words to live by.

Are you sure you didn't mean to say the speed is now closer to18 mph? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

As a Bay Area freeway driver, it's a rare opportunity when I can drive 80.

Not on the SF/Marin highways..101N...I wish they had never gotten rid of the 55...it's really nuts out there...


------------------
"I always think there's a
band, kid..."

Originally posted by stimpy:

But the benefit of the Internet is that you can carefully take the time to think about your words before you press Submit. Words to live by.


which MIGHT have caused YOU to change the title before you posted...

squeaker, you posted your reply 2 minutes after I posted mine. That and your response leads me to believe you didn't really read it and you certainly didn't comprehend it.

OK - this is purely discussion - no personalities involved, OK? But your previous comments seem juxtaposed. On the one hand, you state you posted your title for shock value. It would have offended me less if when I opened the thread, your opening sentence said that - that notwithstanding, however, you then proceed to say that the social problem is that we don't talk like we would face to face. Those two points - shock value vs. social behaviors in internet discussions - just seem like a non-sequitur to me, if not frankly opposed. Do you speak in shock value-ese in person?

Don't get me wrong - it isn't a biggie. I'm a child of the 60's - that's all. But I'm not certain what shock value adds or why you couldn't shock w/out offending. If you had said "Out of control FA goes over the top", I'm betting at least as many people would have opened the thread. You wouldn't have offended FA's any less - and certainly your thread was intended to criticize a particular action of a particular FA - but you might have offended some women less.

I am quite certain you had no interest in offending.. I'm just talking like I would face to face http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Yes I had no interest in offending and if you really read my words in the opening note, I hope you get that. As for the shock words achieving their desired effect, I stand by my statement and do not regret it in any way. The benefit of those words are in the thoughtful posts in this topic.

I think most of the negative reaction by some people is due to a knee-jerk response to something they see or hear. This is a problem that many FA's on the plane have due to having rush around so much on certain flights. People who stop and really consider what the other person has said usually have a mellower reaction.

Think of certain words that people have immediate reactions to. Abortion, guns, right wing, left wing, communism, etc. I can use those words in various sentences some of which you will agree with, some you won't. But some people get their blood boiling as soon as they see them and they never truly read or try to understand the writers message.

Some of the people here got my message, and some didn't. Maybe this was just an experiment for my social psychology class...hmmmm. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

okay