redmisty,

"Lambeau even went so far as to say that people are only complaining to seek attention."

-


You can't throw lies like this around when it's all of a couple of moments work for people to read back through and see that you're telling porkies.

The closest I came to anything bordering on that would be where I suggested that people were filming instead of intervening due to the modern phenomenon of wanting to "go viral."

es, i'm off, though you can add patronising to the list of non-insults i aimed at you.
_______________

Yes indeed.

I will add it to "c@ck" and "lazy and self-righteous"

Yet more hypocrisy....

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 16 minutes ago
Regardless of any legal authority UA may have there is no justification to do to this man what they did, he wasn't being agressive or violet, he's 69 years of age and they could easily have removed him in a less agressive manner.

That's the crux of it for the majority of people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness it was never going to be easy to remove anyone from the tight confines of a packed plane if they were intent on resisting. The bottom line (despite how wrong it seems) is that he should have simply left the plane once he'd been selected.

comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 11 minutes ago
redmisty,

"Lambeau even went so far as to say that people are only complaining to seek attention."

-


You can't throw lies like this around when it's all of a couple of moments work for people to read back through and see that you're telling porkies.

The closest I came to anything bordering on that would be where I suggested that people were filming instead of intervening due to the modern phenomenon of wanting to "go viral."
__________________

Oh really?

So y ou don't recall typing this then?

"I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so..."

The key words here are "just to be seen to be doing so".

I.e. you did very clearly call people attention seekers, citing this as the reason for their "faux outrage".

If you're going to accuse me of lying then you might want to check your own words more carefully first.

I await your apology...

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 11 minutes ago
redmisty,

"Lambeau even went so far as to say that people are only complaining to seek attention."

-


You can't throw lies like this around when it's all of a couple of moments work for people to read back through and see that you're telling porkies.

The closest I came to anything bordering on that would be where I suggested that people were filming instead of intervening due to the modern phenomenon of wanting to "go viral."
__________________

Oh really?

So y ou don't recall typing this then?

"I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so..."

The key words here are "just to be seen to be doing so".

I.e. you did very clearly call people attention seekers, citing this as the reason for their "faux outrage".

If you're going to accuse me of lying then you might want to check your own words more carefully first.

I await your apology...




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh I see, so I never called anyone attention seekers. You just drew your own conclusions.

Thanks for clearing up your inadequacy for all to see.

I forgive your false accusation.

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Cheeser (U1422)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 16 minutes ago
Regardless of any legal authority UA may have there is no justification to do to this man what they did, he wasn't being agressive or violet, he's 69 years of age and they could easily have removed him in a less agressive manner.

That's the crux of it for the majority of people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness it was never going to be easy to remove anyone from the tight confines of a packed plane if they were intent on resisting. The bottom line (despite how wrong it seems) is that he should have simply left the plane once he'd been selected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that the fault lies with the airline by overbooking (standard practice or not), so they must rectify the situation. They should keep upping the price until the people voluntarily leave. Anything less is not acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

According to VC they weren't offering cash, but redeemable flight vouchers of sorts.

I wouldn't have taken up that offer.

"I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so..."

The key words here are "just to be seen to be doing so".

I.e. you did very clearly call people attention seekers, citing this as the reason for their "faux outrage".

If you're going to accuse me of lying then you might want to check your own words more carefully first.

I await your apology...




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh I see, so I never called anyone attention seekers. You just drew your own conclusions.

Thanks for clearing up your inadequacy for all to see.

I forgive your false accusation.
__________________

Wow.

You are actually going to try to deny it?

Well then go ahead and explain exactly what you meant by "just to be seen to be doing so".

If I have concluded incorrectly then what exactly did you mean by that???

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Cheeser (U1422)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 16 minutes ago
Regardless of any legal authority UA may have there is no justification to do to this man what they did, he wasn't being agressive or violet, he's 69 years of age and they could easily have removed him in a less agressive manner.

That's the crux of it for the majority of people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness it was never going to be easy to remove anyone from the tight confines of a packed plane if they were intent on resisting. The bottom line (despite how wrong it seems) is that he should have simply left the plane once he'd been selected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that the fault lies with the airline by overbooking (standard practice or not), so they must rectify the situation. They should keep upping the price until the people voluntarily leave. Anything less is not acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree, but sadly the law does not and therefore this man (by breaking the law) put himself in a position where he's ended up getting hurt.
It's unbelievable but sadly that's the reality.

According to VC they weren't offering cash, but redeemable flight vouchers of sorts.

I wouldn't have taken up that offer.

................

The only people who will are frequent fliers.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 16 seconds ago
"I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so..."

The key words here are "just to be seen to be doing so".

I.e. you did very clearly call people attention seekers, citing this as the reason for their "faux outrage".

If you're going to accuse me of lying then you might want to check your own words more carefully first.

I await your apology...




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh I see, so I never called anyone attention seekers. You just drew your own conclusions.

Thanks for clearing up your inadequacy for all to see.

I forgive your false accusation.
__________________

Wow.

You are actually going to try to deny it?

Well then go ahead and explain exactly what you meant by "just to be seen to be doing so".

If I have concluded incorrectly then what exactly did you mean by that???


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course I'm going to deny it. I didn't say it.

At best, I inferred that people will "go with the crowd" over issues that deep down they don't care about. Case in point; plenty of people on the plane expressed outrage, but none actually acted on it. Nor did they get off the plane the illustrate their disapproval. They remained on board, probably enjoyed an in flight read, drink, snack or movie, and got home on time.

So they were "outraged," but not sufficiently so that they acted upon it in any other way than to say "Look what you did to him" and "oh ma gad" - all whilst filming on their phones...

Well then go ahead and explain exactly what you meant by "just to be seen to be doing so".

If I have concluded incorrectly then what exactly did you mean by that???


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course I'm going to deny it. I didn't say it.

________________

You never said anything about "going with the crowd"

You specifically said "just to be seen to be doing so"

"just to be seen" very clearly means seeking attention unless you can explain otherwise. Which you obviously can't...

Lambeau leap. Your comments justifying this are shocking

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Cheeser (U1422)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Cheeser (U1422)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 16 minutes ago
Regardless of any legal authority UA may have there is no justification to do to this man what they did, he wasn't being agressive or violet, he's 69 years of age and they could easily have removed him in a less agressive manner.

That's the crux of it for the majority of people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness it was never going to be easy to remove anyone from the tight confines of a packed plane if they were intent on resisting. The bottom line (despite how wrong it seems) is that he should have simply left the plane once he'd been selected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that the fault lies with the airline by overbooking (standard practice or not), so they must rectify the situation. They should keep upping the price until the people voluntarily leave. Anything less is not acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree, but sadly the law does not and therefore this man (by breaking the law) put himself in a position where he's ended up getting hurt.
It's unbelievable but sadly that's the reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the law? I don't know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm basing my comments on this snippet from the BBC:

Can an airline really treat passengers like this?

Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, "I'm staying put", he became a disruptive passenger.

From that moment he was disobeying the captain's command. Officials were legally entitled to remove him, and as the videos show, he was dragged from the plane. It appears from the evidence that the law was broken - by him, not by the airline. But I would be surprised if United pressed charges.

"just to be seen" very clearly means seeking attention

-

No it doesn't. It means that they wanted to be seen to be of a certain mindset or opinion. In this case they wanted to be seen to be opposed to what UA were doing. Their motivations for doing such are known to them. Wanting attention? Maybe, but unlikely. More likely is that they saw all the phones, knew it would likely end up on the internet, and wanted "to be seen" to be trying to help, or standing up against injustice.

They made a poor showing of it if you ask me.

comment by Martial Law (U13506)
posted 1 minute ago
Lambeau leap. Your comments justifying this are shocking
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Justifying what? Don't you start!

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 5 minutes ago
BTW the word is "false" not "faux". This is England.

-----------------

How "right wing" of you.
_______________

I was pointing out the irony of calling other people "false" whilst using the pretentious word for "false"

Didn't think that needed explaining...

Comment deleted by Site Moderator