By 'we', I was referring to the vast majority of us who have much better things to do than read tedious, PT posts.

... and PT, what in the world makes you think I'd EVER spend the time contriving a PM to you?

Tears, Jerry. Tears.

Then the "vast majority" can put me on ignore, as well. Congratulations, by the way, on your election to Representative of Everyone on FlyerTalk -- I must have missed it when you were appointed Majority Speaker.

As for PMs, you're the one who said you were considering in your prior post. It was only a couple of hours ago. Have you forgotten already? Short attention span?

See, what it really comes down to is this, which you wrote in another thread:

"You're not a parent. And, as much as you'd like to think your opinion on the matter... well, MATTERS as much as the parents' opinions here do... they don't. Sorry, bro. Suck it up."

You're just one of those (thankfully few) parents who think the fact that they've bred gives them special rights over everyone else, in other words the very definition of entitlement. You think having a kid gives you a license to be rude and abusive. You are oh so wrong.

So, until you're appointed Grand Poohbah of FT, don't think, for even a second, you're in any position to dictate to me when and what I can post. Put me ignore or p!ss off -- either way.

In the case I was referring to, the miscreants were back and across the aisle. I would have had to let the whole FC cabin into the conversation, which I chose not to do.

You have your preferred means of communication, and I have mine. Most children above the age of 3 know they're doing something that is not acceptable. Your assertion that it's childish to give a stern look at a child who is misbehaving is ludicrous.

[QUOTE=PTravel;7464534]
"Assault" actually has a definition. If you will look it up you will find that it is not "annoying" but "violent attack". It is strange that someone who would brand me a "liar" who needs to "shut up" and demands monetary compensation for failing to properly comprehend your rhetoric would not hold themselves to the same linguistic standards that they seem to be demanding of others.

Those two kicking incidents must have been very traumatic. I am so sorry.

If you did indeed refer to other (POS and seat grabber) incidents as "assaults" then I apologize. Your continued misuse of the term "assault", however, weakens your point and is (IMO) an insult to those who have been victims of assault as it is defined by Webster.

I am sorry that you are sad, but you have nothing to fear from me. I think it is sad that someone who calls me a liar, tells me to shut up, and demands money thinks that it is I that am the product of an "entitlement demanding me generation". That said, I appreciate this debate and I don't want you to go away. Your position (while extreme IMO) helps me to better understand my fellow passengers and might even make me a better parent and person. I know I will always have room for improvement. How about you?

[QUOTE=Micromegas;7467702]I'm a lawyer. I know exactly what assault means (and it doesn't mean what you've quoted). However, the colloquial meaning is well understood. If you really want to get technical, "assault" means creating imminent apprehension of an unpermitted contact, and "unpermitted contact" is a "battery". However, "battery" doesn't carry the same colloquial import.

Someone who attributes to me things I never said is lying. Do you want to review that post?

They weren't traumatic. They were annoying.

I prefer "COS," as it isn't also an acronym for a very different and insulting term. When a COS occupies someone else's seat, forcing them into a smaller space than alloted by the airline, or, as was described by another FTer in a thread last year, by literally sitting on them, it is an assault in the colloquial sense (and, potentially, a battery in the legal one). The same is true for seat-grabbers.

I'm not sad.

Don't make things up and attribute them to me, and I won't call you a liar. I didn't "demand" money from you, I bet you $100 that you couldn't find anywhere what you attributed to me. And I told you to "put up or shut up." That's another colloquialism. I'm surprised you've never encountered it before. It doesn't mean, literally, that you should shut up.

I always enjoy a good discussion, particularly with those who hold views contrary to mine. When I take a position (at least an unqualified one), it's the result of having given it some thought. However, I'm always open to having my mind changed. As I said, "seat kicking by children," is, at least in my experience, far from epidemic, particularly when compared to other annoying conduct by some passengers. However, it's rarity doesn't mean that it should be tolerated when encountered. I'm still waiting to hear someone explain why it should be privileged if the passenger doing the kicking is a child.

Sorry, I don't get it. The kid in the back and across the aisle was kicking your seatback? If not we were obviously not talking about the same thing.

You can assert what you want about children knowing what they do, but I still think it's childish not to say what is bothering you. I believe that if you have a problem you should say so. Makes life easier for everyone.

HTB.

Where did I say a kid was kicking the back of my seat? A kid across the aisle was pulling the seat pocket in front of him and snapping it back. Again, and again, and again. I gave him the first 20 times for free, and hoped he would get bored.

I guess some people are not comfortable with non verbal communication, or don't possess the skills to use them. All I will say is that I have much better success with the methods I employ.

PTravel, you just plain rock.

[QUOTE=PTravel;7467861]I would have guessed you were a judge as you've been doing a lot of that.




As I am sure you know, the definition I provided comes from the dictionary (which is where I and the rest of the sans-culottes turn to define our terms). I am sure that you also know that dictionaries provide colloquial definitions. I have yet to find one that defines "assault" as any form of the word "annoying". Your legal definition also does not contain the word "annoying". Do you have a source beyond the fact that you say so? My apologies if you are also a linguistic anthropologist who is in the process of writing your own dictionary. Would you actually tell a victim of assault (a violent attack - from Webster) that, in a colloquial sense, what they suffered is the same as having your seat kicked by a child?

Is it your opinion that if my two year old kicks a seat that a battery has been committed and my child risks being arrested and charged with assault? How much time in juvenile hall for that? Does my child risk being charged as an adult for this crime?

I guess that when my child and I travel next month (to see his dying great grandmother - the nerve of me and my entitlements!), I should bring bail money in the very unlikely case he kicks a seat.

I, nor any parent IMO, has argued that seat kicking is OK or "privileged" behavior. It is something that very rarely occurs despite our best efforts to control it (I know you don't care about that). I fly as little as possible with my child, but I feel that my situation now is worth the gamble. I feel that denying my grandmother her dying wish because of the very slim chance that you might be annoyed (assaulted in your dictionary) reeks of entitlement on your part.

Thanks very much for your time in this debate. I also think you "rock". I'm sure I can't afford your hourly but maybe I could buy you a chocolate milk sometime?

[QUOTE=Micromegas;7471025]I don't get your point at all. Yes, I judge people who think that letting their kid kick the seat of a stranger in front of them is okay. I judge them to be rude and inconsiderate.

Your point?

You can't be serious. Tell you what -- use your dictionary to look up the word, "simile." Then start a thread about why it's a good thing to be rigidly literal.

My opinion is that, if you let your two year old kick the seat of a passenger in front of you, you are being rude and selfish. If you think you're interests in traveling with your two year old trump those of the passenger in front of you in not having his seat kick then you are entitlement demanding.

If it's unlikely that he will kick the seat in front of him then I don't understand the reason for your sarcasm and defensiveness.

Well, lhong wrote this:

That's an argument that seat kicking is privileged.

HedgeFundFlyer wrote this:

That's an argument that seat kicking is privileged.

So please tell me why what you wrote does not constitute an entitlement demand on your part? How does, "my interest in taking my child to see his grandmother is more important than your interest in not having your seat kicked," not constitute an entitlement demand?

And, yes, I'm entitled to not have my seat kicked. What you don't seem to get is that my "entitlement" is satisfied by simply leaving me alone. That's like saying (get ready, this is another simile) asking a bully not to punch me in the nose is an entitlement demand.

I'm trying to drop a little weight. Can you make it a low-fat chocolate milk?

I don't think kicking a seat is privileged by any means. Look, I'm on the side of everyone who wants a peaceful trip. My bottom-line point in my above posts is that it is totally unrealistic to expect a peaceful trip on every flight because it is a public space and, well, it's open to the Lowest Common Denominator ("LCD") effect (apologies that that sounds elitist -- open to suggestions). As most people have pointed out, repeated seat kicking by a child is in reality very rare, and when it does happen it's clearly the parents' faults, and it's probably fine to say something politely to the parent.

More common, though, are the other disturbances by kids, like screaming, crying, touching, etc. At times these are impossible to control, and that's just the way it is. I understand these are annoying. With kids under a certain age, however -- generally innocent children who are not fully aware of what's going on -- it's hard to get too upset in my book. I know people disagree.

What puzzles me, and what got me involved in this discussion in the first place, is the implicit (intended or not) argument that somehow kids are the worst offenders in the airspace, which I think is clearly false. I've listed some of the LCD violations that drive me crazy previously. Most of these LCD violations are perpetrated by adults. This past weekend I flew IAH-LAS in F on CO, which I admit is asking for it, but I had to make the trip. There were several young 20-something boys on the flight in F, baseball hats on backwards, very loud, etc. One of them sat behind me. He had earphones on. Halfway through the flight my seat started getting kicked. Repeatedly. In a bad rhythm. He was "jamming" to his music, and thought that trying to replicate the beat on my seat was acceptable behavior. I finally turned around and gestured to him to stop kicking my seat. This got some "ooohs" from his "buddies" and, sadly, harder kicking. I thought about this thread, and reminded myself to be stoic. Finally he stopped. I almost got up to mention the behavior to an FA, and probably would have if he hadn't stopped, but ultimately there's not much to do in this kind of situation, especially with a jerk who is intent on antagonizing me because I objected to his right to jam.

LCD behavior is a risk whenever there are a lot of people on top of each other, e.g. in movie theaters, planes, buses, subways, etc. I myself avoid LCD situations like the plague. A parent that truly allows a child to terrorize other passengers on a plane (or, for that matter, diners in a restaurant, etc. etc.) is an LCD phenomenon. A lot of other behaviour by children does not fall into this category.

"silent communication" -- there's an oxymoron. you might know the point you're trying to get across but how do you know

1) they even know you're "communcating" to them?
2) they receive the correct "message"?

i agree with another poster; very childish. if its not a big deal or of no consequence, then go ahead but remember, you're not communicating, just ignoring them. but if you really wish to get a message, it is best to actually speak loudly and clearly. like an adult.

PTraveler, did you even read my post? I don't agree it's okay, and I take reasonable steps to preven this. As I said before, it's roughly 99% effective.

I am going one step further. In your ideal world, zero seat kicking would occur. I am trying to HELP you make that happen.

As I said before, I am willing to change, to make things better for you. I am not willing to pay 60k to prevent a single incident, and I try as hard as I can to book bulkhead whenever possible. If you have any other suggestions on how I can make life easier for you feel free to offer them. However, your continued rants make me believe you are not interested in a solution, you'd rather just complain.

As a lawyer, you should be ashamed to write such a statement. Of course we can impose on people as a matter of right. Laws and the legal system are all about balancing competing interests, and yes, rights.

For example, I cannot fire up my table saw before 7AM. However, at 7:01 AM, I can run it, my radio, and do it all with my garage door open, regardless of how late my neighbors want to sleep in. I am imposing on their right to peace and quiet by exercising my right to run power tools at 7:01am. The police can determine if my noise is excessive, and if so, I will be asked to turn it down. If not, my neighbors are out of luck.

Similarly, the FA can determine if the kicking is excessive - if not, you are out of luck. It's a matter of degree. Like I said before, our society is based on balancing competing interests - excessive kicking will get stopped by the FA or in extreme cases, the police. Non-excessive kicking, you will either live with, or fly in a private jet.

Feel free to ask, but you are going to get ignored, because in the real world, that's what happens to complaints without solutions.


P.S. luckily for my neighbors, they like me, and I don't get up early enough to disturb them. But I *could*, if I wanted to

I have never suggested a flight will be totally peaceful. What I have said is that seat kicking is an unacceptable imposition on other passengers. It is not excusable and not something that anyone should have to put up with. If your child your child doesn't kick seats, then it's simply not an issue. As I noted, I've encountered seat kicking very, very rarely. Based on that, I assume that seat kicking is not something that a lot of kids do, nor is it something that most parents are willing to allow.

That's an entirely different issue. I'm not sure what you mean by, "touching." Kids are not privileged to touch strangers. As for screaming and crying, it depends on the context. No one is going to get upset over short-lived impositions, e.g. a baby that cries on landing and take off because of pressure changes in their ears, However, if a kid is prone to prolonged crying or screaming, it is rude and discourteous to take the kid on long-hauls or redeyes.

I want to be clear: I never blame kids. Kids, by definition, are immature and don't have full volitional control over their actions, nor can they exercise judgment as to what is or is not appropriate behavior in public. However, their parents are certainly capable of exercising judgment and it is the parent who I blame for bringing a child into a situation where the child creates a significant disruption that imposes on others.

This thread is about seat kicking. I don't recall any posts about anything other than that.

I was once on a Southwest flight from Las Vegas with my wife and elderly mother. A group of 20-somethings seated behind us did pretty much the same thing. I asked them, nicely, to stop. They didn't. I called the FA, who asked them to stop. They didn't. After the FA asked them for the third time, and as he was walking away, one of the 20-somethings kicked my wife's seat as hard as she could, doubling it over. The FA notified the pilot and the pilot notified the police, who met the plane and detained the 20-something. My wife and I elected to not press charges, but we could have.

And that's the point.

This kind of behavior, when committed by an adult, is not only impermissible, it is criminal. The fact that a child is the one doing the kicking doesn't make it any less acceptable -- it is not privileged.

It's fine if you chose the stoic approach. I wouldn't have. I would have called over the FA and required his or her intervention. If that didn't work, I'd ask that the pilot be notified.

Sorry, I don't buy that. What you've defined as LCD behavior is rude and inconsiderate imposition, pure and simple. On buses and subways, it's possible to remove oneself from the source. In movie theaters and on planes it is not. This kind of behavior in public is a relatively new development -- it certainly wasn't common a couple of decades ago. When I was growing up, my parents would never bring me to public places where my natural propensities would constitute a nuisance to other people.

Seat-kicking certainly does.

I did read your post. Tell me if I got this wrong: there will be times when your child will kick my seat, despite your best efforts. I don't think I got that wrong.

Sorry, you do not have the right to allow your child to kick my seat, even if on 99% of the flights your child is on, he or she doesn't kick seats.

See, this is exactly what I mean. To you, a world in which children do not kick seats is an unrealistic, utopian ideal that will never be achieved. Sorry, but this is exactly the attitude to which I object. In the everyday real world it is never acceptable for a child to kick the seat in front (and, to be absolutely clear, I'm not talking about the kind of interim contact that everyone confined to tight seat pitch commits -- as I've said, kids get just as much slack as anyone else in that regard).

Sorry, but it's your child and your problem. I don't care whether or not you are willing to spend more money to fly, or whether or not bulkhead seats are available on a specific flight. You have absolutely no right, no entitlement, no privilege that excuses your child's kicking the seat in front. "I want to travel with my kids," doesn't mean you can annoy the person seated in front of you anymore than, "I want to groove with my music" means the 20-something can annoy HedgeFundFlyer.

Then tell me what gives you the right to impose on strangers when you fly.

You misunderstand the law of nuisance as well as the noise ordinances in most jurisdictions. However, I am not talking about legal rights. You're not suggesting that, because there's no express law against a kid kicking a seat on an airline, it's okay to do so, are you?

Exactly right. And I've said, several times, that the issue in this thread isn't "non-excessive kicking," i.e. casual or occasional contact with the seat in front.

You may think that if you like. I'm fairly certain that neither the airline nor the FA will agree.