Subject:
|
Re: Sorting Air Safety (Re: Rooting out nests of snakes and destroying them)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:43:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
348 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > 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.
>
> That is easy to say when you are not willing the justify your comment.
>
> > Just a bunch of warmed over false rhetoric.
>
> That is easy to say when you are not willing the justify your comment. Show
> us what is "false" - I doubt you can.
... and it looks like I was correct.
Scott A
>
>
>
> >
> > > ...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.
>
> You are wrong.
>
> Scott A
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
