Subject:
|
Re: Sorting Air Safety (Re: Rooting out nests of snakes and destroying them)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:10:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
362 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lester Witter writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > >
> > > It appears to me that your post is nothing but a troll for a bunch of angry
> > > replies... but I may be wrong.
> > >
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > To the people who think that the subject line isn't the right way to view
> > > > what needs to be done now, I would invite you to suggest another course of
> > > > action.
> > > >
> > > > Ignoring the problem isn't going to work.
> > > > Appeasement isn't going to work.
> > > > Sanctions aren't going to work.
> > > > Cruise missiles lobbed in from a safe distance aren't going to work.
> > > > Turning the free world into a police state isn't going to work. (1)
> > > >
> > > > So what *will* work? I think we all want to know. Don't just take pot shots
> > > > at the big bad US-Israeli axis. It's old "news"(2). Let's hear concrete
> > > > proposals.
> > >
> > > I'm glad you have broken your own moratorium Larry, I have been waiting to
> > > ask you if you still think removing federal involvement in air safety
> > > regulation is a good thing? Do you think a deregulated air safety regime
> > > would have prevented the hijacks on Tuesday – or even made them less likely?
> > > I ask this within the context of my knowledge that the air industry
> > > effectively watered down the proposals made during the Clinton administration.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 1 - I just got back from GRR where I returned my rental and picked up my
> > > > car. Spooky. Dogs everywhere, concrete barriers, no cars within 300 feet
> > > > unless escorted, rental lots relocated to far away, Way overreacting I
> > > > think, but just a harbinger of more to come, I fear.
> > > >
> > > > 2 - "news" in the sense that it is an incomplete and largely false picture.
> > >
> > > Show what is false Larry. Show us.
> > >
> > > Scott A
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ++Lar
> >
> > What is being proposed is not Air safety but Defense against forign (or
> > possibly domestic) attack.
>
> I have already solved that problem:
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=33081
That's no solution, it's tripe. Just a bunch of warmed over false rhetoric.
> ...and you have not answered my question.
In fact he did. Whether air traffic control is public or private has zero
bearing on how secure the system is unless you want to argue that private is
more likely to be more secure.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
