T Nation

Book Gets Man Banned From Flight

This is absolutely hilarious! I found it even more so than the couple of banned-because-of-their-T-shirts stories from a few months back. Read on how a guy wouldn’t be allowed to board the plane because of a book.

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/101801/news.godfrey.shtml

Freedom my ass!

[quote]lixy wrote:
This is absolutely hilarious! I found it even more so than the couple of banned-because-of-their-T-shirts stories from a few months back. Read on how a guy wouldn’t be allowed to board the plane because of a book.

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/101801/news.godfrey.shtml

Freedom my ass![/quote]

“It is fair to say that Godfrey ? brother of City Paper webmaster Ryan Godfrey ? doesn?t look unusual for a 22-year-old kid living in Center City.”

And we all know that the story must be 100% correct and that the principle of contradiction is very well served here…

Hilarious? Why is this funny to you?

Freedom my ass? So what if someone made a mistake by not letting this kid get on the plane. Better safe than sorry.

Let’s see someone try to bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia and see what happens.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Freedom my ass? So what if someone made a mistake by not letting this kid get on the plane. Better safe than sorry.[/quote]

You’re kidding, right? Did you even read the article?

The line between safe and power-crazy “officials” flexing their authoritative muscles is not that thin.

I love that the United employees were right in the thick of it. Nothing like getting served by some stick-up-the-ass flight attendant. You react to her SS-like demeanor and you’re the one with a problem; you’re the “troublemaker”.

And then there’s the guy who couldn’t cut it at the police academy furrowing his brow at my reading selections. Jesus H.

With the gov’t behind them, these fucks have forgotten the cardinal rule of business.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Hilarious? Why is this funny to you? [/quote]

It’s sad for the person who’s watching their constitutional rights go down the drain.

To the outside observer, it’s quite funny to watch the level of paranoia you guys reached.

It’s too recurent a scenario to be blamed on human error. My money is it being official policy to send a message to dissidents. But we can’t know since it’s not publicly available information.

Now THAT is funny! Comparing the crucible of modern democracy to a barbaric rotten theocratic system.

So… the credibility of an article written and published by the brother of one of the involved parties, without letting the other party involved make an official statement… is hereby SUPERB!

Good to know that you have such high standards lixy… :slight_smile:

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
So… the credibility of an article written and published by the brother of one of the involved parties, without letting the other party involved make an official statement… is hereby SUPERB!
[/quote]

Yeah, yeah…you already said that. Anything else?

You’ll have to forgive me for always giving the benefit of the doubt to the small guy. And as far as not letting the other party speak, I see interviews with the supervisor of airport operations for United, a Philadelphia International spokesman, a supervisor with Aviation Safeguard, the company United contracts to man security checkpoints in Philadelphia.

Let’s see knock down this one!
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/04/10/news/18014.shtml

Just so you know, the guy is a Constitutional law scholar and professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University. Princeton describes him as ?among the most distinguished constitutional scholars of the 20th century.? He also happens to be a retired marine.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
So… the credibility of an article written and published by the brother of one of the involved parties, without letting the other party involved make an official statement… is hereby SUPERB!

Yeah, yeah…you already said that. Anything else?

You’ll have to forgive me for always giving the benefit of the doubt to the small guy. And as far as not letting the other party speak, I see interviews with the supervisor of airport operations for United, a Philadelphia International spokesman, a supervisor with Aviation Safeguard, the company United contracts to man security checkpoints in Philadelphia.

Let’s see knock down this one!
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/04/10/news/18014.shtml

Just so you know, the guy is a Constitutional law scholar and professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University. Princeton describes him as ?among the most distinguished constitutional scholars of the 20th century.? He also happens to be a retired marine.[/quote]

Yeah, better safe than sorry is a stupid principle… And bringing up another case where we don’t have all the facts… great… :slight_smile:

Check the date, lixy.

That article was from October of 2001.

I can’t imagine why airports would be pretty jumpy and erring far on the side of caution back in the fall of '01.

geez…

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Check the date, lixy.

That article was from October of 2001.

I can’t imagine why airports would be pretty jumpy and erring far on the side of caution back in the fall of '01.

geez…[/quote]

You’re Right.

It got Digg-ed up yesterday so I assumed it was fresh. Thanks for pointing that out.

Move along. Nothing for you to see here…

[quote]lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Check the date, lixy.

That article was from October of 2001.

I can’t imagine why airports would be pretty jumpy and erring far on the side of caution back in the fall of '01.

geez…

You’re Right.

It got Digg-ed up yesterday so I assumed it was fresh. Thanks for pointing that out.

Move along. Nothing for you to see here…[/quote]

Another failure for the
cyber- Jihadist…what a tool.

[quote]hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Check the date, lixy.

That article was from October of 2001.

I can’t imagine why airports would be pretty jumpy and erring far on the side of caution back in the fall of '01.

geez…

You’re Right.

It got Digg-ed up yesterday so I assumed it was fresh. Thanks for pointing that out.

Move along. Nothing for you to see here…

Another failure for the
cyber- Jihadist…what a tool.
[/quote]

Was this comment necessary at all? He made a mistake, not even a big one.

If it’s on the front page of Digg, I’d assume it was recent too.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Check the date, lixy.

That article was from October of 2001.

I can’t imagine why airports would be pretty jumpy and erring far on the side of caution back in the fall of '01.

geez…

You’re Right.

It got Digg-ed up yesterday so I assumed it was fresh. Thanks for pointing that out.

Move along. Nothing for you to see here…

Another failure for the
cyber- Jihadist…what a tool.

Was this comment necessary at all? He made a mistake, not even a big one.

If it’s on the front page of Digg, I’d assume it was recent too.
[/quote]

Yes.

It’s lixy. He claims to be smarter then everyone. It’s fun to point out his hair trigger bias.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Check the date, lixy.

That article was from October of 2001.

I can’t imagine why airports would be pretty jumpy and erring far on the side of caution back in the fall of '01.

geez…

You’re Right.

It got Digg-ed up yesterday so I assumed it was fresh. Thanks for pointing that out.

Move along. Nothing for you to see here…

Another failure for the
cyber- Jihadist…what a tool.

Was this comment necessary at all? He made a mistake, not even a big one.

If it’s on the front page of Digg, I’d assume it was recent too.

Yes.

It’s lixy. He claims to be smarter then everyone. It’s fun to point out his hair trigger bias.
[/quote]

“Cyber-jihadist” is a cheap shot, he happens to be Muslim, and left-wing, but he’s said he abhors violence against innocents. I rarely agree with lixy, but trying to discredit him as a terrorist sympathizer is BS.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Was this comment necessary at all? He made a mistake, not even a big one.

If it’s on the front page of Digg, I’d assume it was recent too.
[/quote]

What tipped me off about the date was not the date posted at the top of the article. That could be easily missed.

Reading the article, it was bloody obvious that it was quite old.

That whole ID bit, about it expiring in Feb 2000. Then the kid challenges that, saying that’s the ‘under 21 date’. That means the license, and presumably the article, is AT LEAST 3 years old. Turns out it was five-and-a-half.

This whole thing tells me that lixy didn’t even read the article he posted. Hedo is exactly right, this thread is another demonstration of lixy’s hair-trigger bias against the U.S…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Freedom my ass![/quote]

lixy is either incredibly biased and very intellectually lazy (and that’s being generous), or he’s a cyber-jihadist.

lixy owned himself yet again. does this ever get you discouraged?

[quote]hedo wrote:
Another failure for the
cyber- Jihadist…what a tool.
[/quote]

You are a douchebag.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
That whole ID bit, about it expiring in Feb 2000. Then the kid challenges that, saying that’s the ‘under 21 date’. That means the license, and presumably the article, is AT LEAST 3 years old. Turns out it was five-and-a-half.
[/quote]

Give me a break! How I am supposed to know the validity period of an American license? Where I come from, it’s 10 years.

I admitted making an mistake, but it was honest and despite the jerky comment, was done in good faith.

[quote]lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
That whole ID bit, about it expiring in Feb 2000. Then the kid challenges that, saying that’s the ‘under 21 date’. That means the license, and presumably the article, is AT LEAST 3 years old. Turns out it was five-and-a-half.

Give me a break! How I am supposed to know the validity period of an American license? Where I come from, it’s 10 years.

I admitted making an mistake, but it was honest and despite the jerky comment, was done in good faith.[/quote]

Yes, all you one sided critique of Israel and USA is in good faith…

RIGHT!

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
Another failure for the
cyber- Jihadist…what a tool.

You are a douchebag.[/quote]

And your LIFTICVSMAXIMVS…kind of the same thing isn’t it???

What are you going to be against today idiot?