Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on September 07, 2007, 01:57:06 PM
-
Yet another WTF right when you think things can't get any dumber... looking forward to the day when corporations have full control over every aspect of our lives ::)
Behold, the Corporate Fashion Police ::)
http://www.knbc.com/news/14068141/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news
-
What the hell am I missing..whats wrong with that outfit.
-
southwest is a private company.. they can do whatever they want. maybee some passengers were complaining.
-
Wasn't Southwest also the first to start making extremely fat people buy 2 seats?
There's nothing wrong with the outfit. As for their claim about being a 'family airline', I LOVE how they're trying to pretend that they are NOT the commuter service for every stripper that works between LA and Vegas. ::)
-
Wasn't Southwest also the first to start making extremely fat people buy 2 seats?
There's nothing wrong with the outfit. As for their claim about being a 'family airline', I LOVE how they're trying to pretend that they are NOT the commuter service for every stripper that works between LA and Vegas. ::)
If you take up two seats you should pay for two seats. You or I shouldn't have to suffer when sitting next to someone that can't fit into one seat.
-
What the hell am I missing..whats wrong with that outfit.
exactly
-
southwest is a private company.. they can do whatever they want. maybee some passengers were complaining.
now apply that concept to the fact that increasingly everything you do or will do is subject to the corporation overlords, but hey, you can still dress exactly like you want in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness ::) There was nothing wrong with her dress there Barney, use your head...
-
whoever insisted upon her covering up should be tried AND CONVICTED for crimes against humanity.
-
southwest is a private company.. they can do whatever they want. maybee some passengers were complaining.
They can't change the rules midstream after they have sold you a ticket. If they want to implement a dress code they can, but they have a responsibility to lay out specifically what that is, and notify customers before they buy a ticket.
-
This is the outfit ???
I heard about on the news, I expected some really risque half naked trash outfit.
I can only assume those that "complained" were female, and either old, fat or ugly ::)
-
This is the outfit ???
I heard about on the news, I expected some really risque half naked trash outfit.
I can only assume those that "complained" were female, and either old, fat or ugly ::)
It's like when the uptown 'escorts' sit around talking trash about the downtown street hookers as if they're all not whores. ::)
-
Whoop-de-do. Clothes look fine to me, but if she doesn't like the dress code, she can chose another airline. She has about ten other airlines to choose from. What the heck is she going to sue for? Getting her feelings hurt?
Slow news day . . . .
-
southwest is a private company.. they can do whatever they want. maybee some passengers were complaining.
SW is a publicly traded company (stock symbol LUV) and I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed some discretion over their dress code.
-
They can't change the rules midstream after they have sold you a ticket. If they want to implement a dress code they can, but they have a responsibility to lay out specifically what that is, and notify customers before they buy a ticket.
Well said.
-
now apply that concept to the fact that increasingly everything you do or will do is subject to the corporation overlords, but hey, you can still dress exactly like you want in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness ::) There was nothing wrong with her dress there Barney, use your head...
do you have any common sense? do you believe someone at southwest was bored and just felt the erge to kick someone off their flight for fun? or do you think it was for a reason? think about it.. even if thats the same outfit, she could have had her pussy showing for all we know. she could have been doing a striptease for all we know.she could have been a bitch yelling and screaming.. and so far southwest hasnt made a statement. all you know is this girls version,, but you tell me to use my head?
typical liberal.. always take the side of the "victim" no matter what. no matter if they were right or wrong.. its never the little guys fault. its evil corporations and everyone that is more powerfull then you.
-
SW is a publicly traded company (stock symbol LUV) and I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed some discretion over their dress code.
That discretion has to be reasonable, however, and in this case was not.
-
That discretion has to be reasonable, however, and in this case was not.
it did seem a bit arbitrary
I watched a bit of this girl on some morning show and it seems like if SW really had an issue it could have been addressed more discreetly and before she boarded the plane.
On a personal note, I have no objection at all to the way she was dressed
-
it did seem a bit arbitrary
I watched a bit of this girl on some morning show and it seems like if SW really had an issue it could have been addressed more discreetly and before she boarded the plane.
On a personal note, I have no objection at all to the way she was dressed
exaclty, there was nothing wrong with how she was dressed, this whole thing is absurd, they deserve whatever they have coming their way cause they fucked up big time.
-
This is great. She got her 15 minutes of fame and now Southwest is running promotions based on this incident. I love this country. :)
Southwest Airlines Apologizes to Woman Told to Cover Up, Announces 'Skimpy' Fare Sale
Saturday, September 15, 2007
DALLAS — Southwest Airlines Co. says it is apologizing to a young California woman who was told her outfit was too skimpy to fly, and it's using the brouhaha as a marketing ploy — announcing a "miniskirt fare sale."
The aggrieved woman, Kyla Ebbert, took her case Friday to "The Dr. Phil Show." Host Phil McGraw read an apology from Southwest Chief Executive Gary Kelly during the show, which is scheduled to air Tuesday.
Ebbert said she was on a Southwest plane ready to take off from San Diego on July 3 when an airline employee asked her to change her miniskirt, top and sweater or get off.
In a compromise, the 23-year-old was allowed to stay on the flight to Tucson, Ariz., after pulling her skirt down and her top up.
Kelly said the airline apologized to Ebbert in August and thought the affair was over. But in the past two weeks, Ebbert went on NBC's "Today Show" and then "The Dr. Phil Show."
Ebbert's account, and a similar one by another young California woman this week, led to unfavorable press coverage and Internet chatter about Dallas-based Southwest. Newspaper columnists and bloggers derided the airline — which put its stewardesses in hot pants and called itself "The love airline" in the 1970s — as prudish.
RelatedStories
Another Woman Claims Southwest Airlines Forced Her to Cover Up on Flight Southwest Flight Attendant Tries to Boot Hooters Waitress From Plane Over Clothing So Kelly decided to change the tone Friday by issuing another apology to Ebbert — company President Colleen Barrett was dispatched to phone her — and announce a miniskirts-and-hot pants fare sale.
"It is quite humorous, given that we were born with hot pants," Kelly said. "We're trying to be good-humored about all this."
Kelly declined to give his opinion of Ebbert's July 3 outfit, and said the airline needs to "lean towards the customer."
"We don't have a dress code at Southwest Airlines, and we don't want to put our employees in the position of being the fashion police," he said, "but there's a fine line you walk sometimes in not offending other passengers."
Kelly said Ebbert is a regular customer of Southwest and he hopes to keep it that way.
On Friday, the airline offered Ebbert two free round-trip tickets, and it issued a double entendre-laced press release announcing "skimpy" sale fares of $49 to $109 each way, available for 10 days.
Efforts to reach Ebbert were unsuccessful.
Airline officials said they hadn't contacted another woman, Setara Qassim, who told a TV interviewer this week that a Southwest employee made her wrap a blanket over her short dress with plunging neckline. Southwest officials said they had no record of Qassim, 21, filing a complaint.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296886,00.html
-
that piece of shit airline is so in debt it doesnt matter.
-
that piece of shit airline is so in debt it doesnt matter.
Southwest is?
All I've ever heard is that they're one of the only profitable airlines in the country.
-
Southwest is?
All I've ever heard is that they're one of the only profitable airlines in the country.
they've been bankrupt since 05. they are at the top as far as profits, but are still under chap.11
i personally think its the worst airline, cuzvhalf there flights get cancelled. since all i do is fly and deal with the airlines, id say in the next few years jet blue will take over everything, cuz they got there shit togather.
-
God bless America. Southwest makes money. The girl makes money. The media gets a few headlines. Message board material, etc., etc.
Hooters Waitress Told to Cover Up on Southwest Airlines Flight Undresses for Playboy
Friday, November 16, 2007
DALLAS — A 23-year-old college student who was told by a Southwest Airlines employee that her outfit was too revealing to fly is wearing even less on Playboy's Web site.
Kyla Ebbert appears in a series of pictures — some in lingerie, some nude — under the heading, "Legs in the Air."
"They're very tastefully done," Ebbert told The Associated Press on Thursday. "I don't see anything wrong with the female body."
Playboy contacted Ebbert's attorney to pitch the idea of posing. After "a little bit of talking" to convince her mother, Ebbert agreed. She said her boyfriend supported her decision, but "the most hesitant one was my dad."
On its Web site, Playboy says Ebbert "was too sexy for Southwest Airlines, but she's perfect for Playboy."
Ebbert said she was paid "less than six figures" to pose, but wouldn't give the specific amount.
A Southwest Airlines Co. employee pulled Ebbert off a flight this summer and forced her to adjust her outfit of a tank top, sweater and miniskirt before getting back on the plane.
Ebbert ripped the airline in appearances on NBC's "The Today Show" and "The Dr. Phil Show," during which she wore the outfit. Southwest officials said they don't have a dress code but don't want customers' attire to offend other passengers.
Ebbert said she was offended that Southwest tried to turn the dustup to its advantage by promoting a fare sale in honor of miniskirts. Southwest apologized to Ebbert, but she said she found the double-entendre-laced message unacceptable.
"They used my name in an ad campaign without asking permission," she said. "I thought I'd been slapped in the face."
Told of Ebbert's spread on the Playboy Web site, Southwest spokeswoman Beth Harbin said, "We wish her all the best."
Ebbert worked at a Hooters in San Diego but said wants to become an attorney, and doesn't think posing nude should get in the way of her professional aspirations.
"This was beautiful and classy. I don't see why it would affect a professional position," she said. "I'd do it again in a heartbeat."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311905,00.html
-
saw this on Fox yesterday. But it doesn't make it right either.
-
saw this on Fox yesterday. But it doesn't make it right either.
I agree, but neither one of them handled this appropriately IMO. Southwest shouldn't have kicked her off the plane. Her clothes looked fine to me. And she shouldn't have made a federal case out of this. She should simply fly on another airline. Still, they both wound up profiting from this.
Reminds me of the time Hertz disrespected my wife several years ago. I wrote a letter to the company to complain about it. Didn't like their response and have never used their service since. And I rent a lot for business. Only use Budget.
-
I agree, but neither one of them handled this appropriately IMO. Southwest shouldn't have kicked her off the plane. Her clothes looked fine to me. And she shouldn't have made a federal case out of this. She should simply fly on another airline. Still, they both wound up profiting from this.
Reminds me of the time Hertz disrespected my wife several years ago. I wrote a letter to the company to complain about it. Didn't like their response and have never used their service since. And I rent a lot for business. Only use Budget.
So she went wrong when she talked to the media about it :-\ It wasn't a federal case, it was talked about for a pretty short time. Shit, I want to know what companies act like this, I don't want people to feel they shouldn't talk about their bad exeriences. That's the name of the game, word of mouth advertising is both good and bad and companies have benefited and been hurt by customers who have been satified or wronged. If the trangression is big enough, the word might just make news--GOOD!
-
I agree, but neither one of them handled this appropriately IMO. Southwest shouldn't have kicked her off the plane. Her clothes looked fine to me. And she shouldn't have made a federal case out of this. She should simply fly on another airline. Still, they both wound up profiting from this.
Reminds me of the time Hertz disrespected my wife several years ago. I wrote a letter to the company to complain about it. Didn't like their response and have never used their service since. And I rent a lot for business. Only use Budget.
when you buy a plane ticket you are agreeing on a document that says you can be kicked off the flight at any point. they dont need a reason, simple as that
-
when you buy a plane ticket you are agreeing on a document that says you can be kicked off the flight at any point. they dont need a reason, simple as that
And she doesn't need a reason to be disgruntled! Sort of the customer's user agreement. If they don't want pissed off customers bitching about their bad experience, maybe they'll rethink how they do business... Again this has been the name of the game for a long time. I see nothing wrong with it unless there are lies involved which doesn't look to be the case here.
-
Leave it to some skank to justify posing in Playboy to get "positive" publicity after a company threw her off a plane. I guess she just wanted to get her "good name back".
-
Well Playboy is hardly XXX Porn... It's actually far less explicit than much of the Art of previous periods. Playboy didn't humilate her, Southwest on the other hand?
-
Well Playboy is hardly XXX Porn... It's actually far less explicit than much of the Art of previous periods. Playboy didn't humilate her, Southwest on the other hand?
She is now an explicit (in comparison to her skirt and low cut shirt pics) sexual object to thousands of men. Another college girl who can't wait to get naked for a camera because she is desperate for attention. She may not feel humiliated by this but she is a joke now whereas before she was just a victim in the minds of some people. If someone complained then the company has an obligation to act. I've been on another airline with a screaming girl who wanted to sit next to her mom and the father said no until the final 5 minutes of the flight. I rang the attendant bell a number of times and all but screamed at the lady to do something and she kissed the dad's ass and he told her that everything was fine. I wish more airlines did what Southwest did/does.
-
cap, I think you're blowing the playboy thing way out of proportion. Posing for playboy is nothing... Had she signed a contract with Wicked Entertainment, you might have my attention. Playboy is pretty tasteful and there was nothing unfamily friendly about her outfit when she got on that plane.
-
So she went wrong when she talked to the media about it :-\ It wasn't a federal case, it was talked about for a pretty short time. Shit, I want to know what companies act like this, I don't want people to feel they shouldn't talk about their bad exeriences. That's the name of the game, word of mouth advertising is both good and bad and companies have benefited and been hurt by customers who have been satified or wronged. If the trangression is big enough, the word might just make news--GOOD!
Yes. She was on The Today Show and the Dr. Phil Show. Sounds like a federal case to me. She was kicked off an airplane. Nobody died. Nobody lost their job. Nobody was hurt. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. She sounds like an opportunist to me. Posing for Playboy proves that (to me anyway).
-
Leave it to some skank to justify posing in Playboy to get "positive" publicity after a company threw her off a plane. I guess she just wanted to get her "good name back".
lol . . . Yes. She got her good name back by "tastefully" taking off her clothes and posing naked in a magazine for money.
I always find it funny when women say they "tastefully" posed naked in a magazine. lol . . .
-
playboy is not tasteful? What are you guys, the American Taliban :-\
-
playboy is not tasteful? What are you guys, the American Taliban :-\
It's still pornography no matter how you look at it. Just because she wasn't getting rammed by a foot long doesn't change that. She took off her clothes to get back some dignity that was lost by being told to pull her skirt down. Do you not see the irony? Do you respect Hugh Hefner's girlfriends or any other woman who you've seen in Playboy? For men who see this chick, she's just another girl in the "spank bank" and a whore or slut to other women.
-
por·nog·ra·phy
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
Playboy definitely has artistic merit.
-
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material
pornography
noun
creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire
Say what you will about Playboy's cartoons and jokes, you buy the magazine for a "hard on" not for the artistic merit of the pictures.
-
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material
pornography
noun
creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire
Say what you will about Playboy's cartoons and jokes, you buy the magazine for a "hard on" not for the artistic merit of the pictures.
guy, unless you're a teenager, you don't want a playboy to rub one out... You will have a hard time arguing there is zero artistic merit to playboy. It's true, this is a fine line that has been argued to death by many people but even so, it shouldn't be hard to see from playboy layouts that they explore the sensuality of the subject more than just exploiting the subject as is done in hardcore. Hell, the images in playboy are more tasteful to the subject than some magazines that don't show any nudity.
-
guy, unless you're a teenager, you don't want a playboy to rub one out... You will have a hard time arguing there is zero artistic merit to playboy. It's true, this is a fine line that has been argued to death by many people but even so, it shouldn't be hard to see from playboy layouts that they explore the sensuality of the subject more than just exploiting the subject as is done in hardcore. Hell, the images in playboy are more tasteful to the subject than some magazines that don't show any nudity.
Reasons for Playboy
1.) get a boner and likely masturbate
2.) if you get caught with porn, better Playboy than Hustler
3.) possibly jokes and political cartoons?
4.) You feel like less of a pervert than having a mag of a chick getting railed up the ass
5.) You save the good stuff for the internet
Honestly, Playboy is not over the top but it is meant for horny men and that is why it will always sell. If you buy the magazine for its artistic qualities then I dunno dude.
-
Well I know the girls are hot and pleasant to look at, but the last time I yanked one out to a playboy was in my teens. It's really pin-up, sensual, sexy but not what I would call an exploitation or without any artistic merit. If you had to pick one magazine out of all the magazines out there that could be considered as having artistic merit, isn't playboy the one and only candidate?
-
She is now an explicit (in comparison to her skirt and low cut shirt pics) sexual object to thousands of men. Another college girl who can't wait to get naked for a camera because she is desperate for attention. She may not feel humiliated by this but she is a joke now whereas before she was just a victim in the minds of some people.
She was ALWAYS a sexual object. Had she not been objectified as such to begin with, such complaints would neither have risen, nor would the airline employees felt the need to act on it. That was the humiliation done to her. By even validating those passenger complaints by punishing an innocent person, she was reduced to a sexual object, and victimized by SouthWest employees
If someone complained then the company has an obligation to act. I've been on another airline with a screaming girl who wanted to sit next to her mom and the father said no until the final 5 minutes of the flight. I rang the attendant bell a number of times and all but screamed at the lady to do something and she kissed the dad's ass and he told her that everything was fine. I wish more airlines did what Southwest did/does.
Your situation does not compare to the SW incident. One cannot choose to block their ability to hear, however, one can choose not to look at another person, ...especially when it requires an exerted, extraordinary effort to do so. Action against the passenger on SW was unwarranted, and undeserved.
In the incident you experienced, it appears the Dad was the decision maker who acted improperly but for some reason you blame "the lady". Which lady were you referring to? The mother of the child, or the airline employee? It is unclear to me, since you have chosen to reduce the individual of which you speak to nothing more than her gender. >:(
Consider for a moment the ramifications of dealing with a child, or taking physical charge of a child, especially in the presence of, and over the explicit expressed objections of a physical custodial parent, when no apparent or imminent risk is present to anyone's safety.
I do sympathize with you though, 'cause I have been there on a very long flight to LA, only in my case the screaming child was not a 5 yr old but a newborn babe. I had been up all night packing and was looking forward to a long peaceful rest on that flight, but a freak snowstorm that morning covered most runways with snow, resulting in a 2 hr delay taking off while our plane was de-iced. The newborn was seated right next to the engines which needed to be revved during and subsequent to de-icing, and stay revved prior to departure. We sat on the tarmac for 2 hrs... the engines roaring the entire time. Then after taking off, the change in altitude and pressurization of the cabin, did nothing to relieve her ordeal. That baby screamed throughout the entire flight. But when I looked at it from the child's perspective, my annoyance turned to heartfelt sympathy for the child, because I knew that poor little thing had absolutely no idea what was happening to her, where that huge roar was coming from, or why her tiny little eardrums were exploding. I no longer saw her screaming as the thing that was preventing me from getting some much needed rest, but rather the indications that that sweet innocent child was not getting the peaceful rest that she sorely needed. With that perspective, my discomfort became far more bareable, and rather insignificant by comparison.
I do think both of you are completely missing the point tho. Arguing whether Playboy magazine has artistic merit or not, is pornography or not, ...is above the standards of Hustler, Bang Bros, Wicked Entertainment, or Necrophilia Today is irrelevant. To view her subsequent decision to pose nude, 'tastefully or otherwise', as some sort of validation for the stupid decision made by SW employees that day is a specious argument that not only stinks of arrogant, self-righteous, chauvanism, but reveals an ignorance regarding women, and their need to own their own sexuality. Those who understand women, may properly interpret her decision to pose for Playboy as cathartic, allowing her to reclaim ownership of her sexuality on her terms, ...as opposed to opportunism, or being a "slut". ::)
I don't give a poop is she later chose to do a FULL ON no holds barred explicitly graphic XXX layout for Necrophilia Today, the bottom line is she WAS mistreated by airline employees who mishandled the situation. They DO have an obligation to address passenger complaints, but that obligation neither carries with it, nor implies the imperative to cater to a complainant's outrageous desires or skewed perspective, by punishing the object of that complaint. She committed no violations and did not deserve to be mistreated, or threatened with removal from the plane for not catering to the improper demands of prudish passenger prejudice, or the complicitous madness of megalomaniacal airline employees, when neither her conduct, nor her attire as an airline passenger was in any way improper.
I will at least give KUDOs to the airline for not further compounding their hypocritical mistake, by adding some stupid arbitrary 'after-the-fact' "passenger apparel code", to seemingly justify their improper and hypocritical actions to begin with.
And as for kh300's comment saying that
when you buy a plane ticket you are agreeing on a document that says you can be kicked off the flight at any point. they dont need a reason, simple as that
... try having a flight attendant kicking someone off in mid-flight at cruising altitude, and see how far they get invoking that clause.
That BS mob rule mentally didn't go so well for the airlines right after 911, when they catered to outrageous passenger complaints by kicking a US federal marshall off the plane because he was "dark skinned & Middle eastern looking", why should anyone think it should work now in the case of a woman already strapped into her seat minding her own business? Have any of you even flown on an airplane? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to even see all of your fellow passengers without having to strain your neck in a deliberate attempt to do so? ::)
If she is an opportunist, as Beach Bum believes her to be, ...it simply underscores the poor judgement exercised by those employees by providing her with a perfect platform to show the world what a stupid myopic decision they made.
The fact that they even felt they had the right to cater to such ridiculousness, or make such megalomaniacal demands, as well as the fact that this is even being debated at all, is indicative of a growing prudish & fascist police-state mentality taking root in your society right under your noses... You are all like frogs ...slowly being cooked, ...and some even welcome it. Makes me wonder how soon it'll be before some in the pot start citing the need for a little butter & garlic at the ready... to make them more palateable before they're devoured. <spit>
-
Jag-I am referring to the flight attendant who received numerous complaints and simply shrugged the problem off. She could have right out and said that customers were complaining about the noise and that he needed to do something immediately. She just asked if everything was okay with the child to which he answered "yes".
In terms of the girl owning her sexuality, give me a break. If she or you think that this young woman will gain any respect from others or herself then women need a reality check. Being asked to cover up by ANOTHER passenger who is offended is not a big deal. If the picture depicts the actual way the outfit was presented and not just the same articles of clothing then I agree there is no real issue but someone thought there was. Maybe it was a Mormon mother, a former beauty queen who gained 80 lbs or tranny who was mad her legs looked better in the skirt. Regardless, the company has a responsibility to act. I know a lot about Arizona weather and I think she would have survived if she had worn something else or covered up the way she did.
-
This is really ironic. Woman complains to the media about her skirt not being too short then takes off all her clothes for a magazine spread. ::)
-
Kyla Ebbert Uncensored Photos From Playboy Shoot
by Mike Baron
Kyla Ebbert is no longer the girl next door who showed too much skin on an airline - she's now reduced herself to proving the entire world right.
Kyla Ebbert, who many say "wasn't" dressed inappropriately on the South West air flight, has still proven everyone right - she's just a sex kitten who got pissy when she was told to cover up. Waah.
Kyla Ebbert was wearing a very short white skirt with a tanktop and a short, cropped sweater that revealed cleavage down to her nipples when she boarded the flight.
She's a Hooter's waitress from San Diego.
Kyla has appeared on several TV shows trying to prove that she "wasn't" dressed inappropriately - I got news for ya, Kyla - most of your generation and younger dress inappropriately.
Regardless, the 23-year-old college student now appears in a series of pictures for Playboy - some in lingerie, some nude - under the heading, "Legs in the Air." She is also now featured in a sexual teaser video. What a shocker.
Check out the censored photos and video at Playboy - she may not have been nude on the flight, but wait 'til you see these.
Here is the classy artistic lady trying to regain her woman hood and respect. ::) http://www.buck1690.com/Kyla-Ebbert/
Like I said, just another excuse for some skank to justify taking her clothes off. She is no different than the other college girls in the Sex board thread.
-
Have any of you even flown on an airplane? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to even see all of your fellow passengers without having to strain your neck in a deliberate attempt to do so? ::)
hardly ever ::)..
-
And as for kh300's comment saying that
... try having a flight attendant kicking someone off in mid-flight at cruising altitude, and see how far they get invoking that clause.
That BS mob rule mentally didn't go so well for the airlines right after 911, when they catered to outrageous passenger complaints by kicking a US federal marshall off the plane because he was "dark skinned & Middle eastern looking", why should anyone think it should work now in the case of a woman already strapped into her seat minding her own business? Have any of you even flown on an airplane? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to even see all of your fellow passengers without having to strain your neck in a deliberate attempt to do so? ::)
at check in is when an airline can kick someone off.. if they dont like your attitude, the way your dressed, if you smell..etc... mid flight, if your causing a problem its done by an air marshall, when available, or a flight deck officer..
pre 911 air marshalls were employed by the faa. now they are under DHS. big big difference
now what the fuck is this supposed to mean?
-
Jag-I am referring to the flight attendant who received numerous complaints and simply shrugged the problem off. She could have right out and said that customers were complaining about the noise and that he needed to do something immediately. She just asked if everything was okay with the child to which he answered "yes".
Well in that case, I definitely see your point.
In terms of the girl owning her sexuality, give me a break. If she or you think that this young woman will gain any respect from others
Women looking to reclaim ownership of their sexuality are not necessarily looking for anyone's respect.
Walk into any strip joint and ask yourself what the woman in there want from you apart from money.
or herself then women need a reality check. Being asked to cover up by ANOTHER passenger who is offended is not a big deal. If the picture depicts the actual way the outfit was presented and not just the same articles of clothing then I agree there is no real issue but someone thought there was. Maybe it was a Mormon mother, a former beauty queen who gained 80 lbs or tranny who was mad her legs looked better in the skirt. Regardless, the company has a responsibility to act. I know a lot about Arizona weather and I think she would have survived if she had worn something else or covered up the way she did.
Ya, but like I said, a responsibility to act doesn't carry with it the obligation to punish an innocent person to satisfy a complainant. That would be like me complaining that someone is wearing a GWB T-shirt. Lord knows I'd find the site of that man's face one of the most offensive things to look at, but would an attendant be justified in demanding the wearer cover it up or face removal from the plane?
-
at check in is when an airline can kick someone off.. if they dont like your attitude, the way your dressed, if you smell..etc...
ahhh, ...but that's not what you said is it?
mid flight, if your causing a problem its done by an air marshall, when available, or a flight deck officer..
and how does an air marshall kick someone off a plane midflight?
pre 911 air marshalls were employed by the faa. now they are under DHS. big big difference
now what the fuck is this supposed to mean?
If what you say is true that DHS can kill someone on any flight without having a reason,
then your society is even more far gone than I had thought.
-
Here is the classy artistic lady trying to regain her woman hood and respect. ::) http://www.buck1690.com/Kyla-Ebbert/
Like I said, just another excuse for some skank to justify taking her clothes off. She is no different than the other college girls in the Sex board thread.
What I said was "reclaim her sexuality" NOT 'regain her womanhood' ::)
There's a big difference between the two. I'm not surprised tho that you use them interchangeably.
-
She was ALWAYS a sexual object. Had she not been objectified as such to begin with, such complaints would neither have risen, nor would the airline employees felt the need to act on it. That was the humiliation done to her. By even validating those passenger complaints by punishing an innocent person, she was reduced to a sexual object, and victimized by SouthWest employees
Your situation does not compare to the SW incident. One cannot choose to block their ability to hear, however, one can choose not to look at another person, ...especially when it requires an exerted, extraordinary effort to do so. Action against the passenger on SW was unwarranted, and undeserved.
In the incident you experienced, it appears the Dad was the decision maker who acted improperly but for some reason you blame "the lady". Which lady were you referring to? The mother of the child, or the airline employee? It is unclear to me, since you have chosen to reduce the individual of which you speak to nothing more than her gender. >:(
Consider for a moment the ramifications of dealing with a child, or taking physical charge of a child, especially in the presence of, and over the explicit expressed objections of a physical custodial parent, when no apparent or imminent risk is present to anyone's safety.
I do sympathize with you though, 'cause I have been there on a very long flight to LA, only in my case the screaming child was not a 5 yr old but a newborn babe. I had been up all night packing and was looking forward to a long peaceful rest on that flight, but a freak snowstorm that morning covered most runways with snow, resulting in a 2 hr delay taking off while our plane was de-iced. The newborn was seated right next to the engines which needed to be revved during and subsequent to de-icing, and stay revved prior to departure. We sat on the tarmac for 2 hrs... the engines roaring the entire time. Then after taking off, the change in altitude and pressurization of the cabin, did nothing to relieve her ordeal. That baby screamed throughout the entire flight. But when I looked at it from the child's perspective, my annoyance turned to heartfelt sympathy for the child, because I knew that poor little thing had absolutely no idea what was happening to her, where that huge roar was coming from, or why her tiny little eardrums were exploding. I no longer saw her screaming as the thing that was preventing me from getting some much needed rest, but rather the indications that that sweet innocent child was not getting the peaceful rest that she sorely needed. With that perspective, my discomfort became far more bareable, and rather insignificant by comparison.
I do think both of you are completely missing the point tho. Arguing whether Playboy magazine has artistic merit or not, is pornography or not, ...is above the standards of Hustler, Bang Bros, Wicked Entertainment, or Necrophilia Today is irrelevant. To view her subsequent decision to pose nude, 'tastefully or otherwise', as some sort of validation for the stupid decision made by SW employees that day is a specious argument that not only stinks of arrogant, self-righteous, chauvanism, but reveals an ignorance regarding women, and their need to own their own sexuality. Those who understand women, may properly interpret her decision to pose for Playboy as cathartic, allowing her to reclaim ownership of her sexuality on her terms, ...as opposed to opportunism, or being a "slut". ::)
I don't give a poop is she later chose to do a FULL ON no holds barred explicitly graphic XXX layout for Necrophilia Today, the bottom line is she WAS mistreated by airline employees who mishandled the situation. They DO have an obligation to address passenger complaints, but that obligation neither carries with it, nor implies the imperative to cater to a complainant's outrageous desires or skewed perspective, by punishing the object of that complaint. She committed no violations and did not deserve to be mistreated, or threatened with removal from the plane for not catering to the improper demands of prudish passenger prejudice, or the complicitous madness of megalomaniacal airline employees, when neither her conduct, nor her attire as an airline passenger was in any way improper.
I will at least give KUDOs to the airline for not further compounding their hypocritical mistake, by adding some stupid arbitrary 'after-the-fact' "passenger apparel code", to seemingly justify their improper and hypocritical actions to begin with.
And as for kh300's comment saying that
... try having a flight attendant kicking someone off in mid-flight at cruising altitude, and see how far they get invoking that clause.
That BS mob rule mentally didn't go so well for the airlines right after 911, when they catered to outrageous passenger complaints by kicking a US federal marshall off the plane because he was "dark skinned & Middle eastern looking", why should anyone think it should work now in the case of a woman already strapped into her seat minding her own business? Have any of you even flown on an airplane? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to even see all of your fellow passengers without having to strain your neck in a deliberate attempt to do so? ::)
If she is an opportunist, as Beach Bum believes her to be, ...it simply underscores the poor judgement exercised by those employees by providing her with a perfect platform to show the world what a stupid myopic decision they made.
The fact that they even felt they had the right to cater to such ridiculousness, or make such megalomaniacal demands, as well as the fact that this is even being debated at all, is indicative of a growing prudish & fascist police-state mentality taking root in your society right under your noses... You are all like frogs ...slowly being cooked, ...and some even welcome it. Makes me wonder how soon it'll be before some in the pot start citing the need for a little butter & garlic at the ready... to make them more palateable before they're devoured. <spit>
Hurrah!!! RuPaul is back on the politics board.
-
hardly ever ::)..
Are you stating that you are a US Federal air marshall?
And if so, ...was that the badge that you flashed to the Canadian OPP who pulled you over,
...thinking it might have any pull in this country, ...and on the ground?
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
Please stop, ...my sides are aching! hahahhahhahahhahahhaha
-
Hurrah!!! RuPaul is back on the politics board.
RuPaul! I wish! That man can work it better than me. :-\
-
Are you stating that you are a US Federal air marshall?
And if so, ...was that the badge that you flashed to the Canadian OPP who pulled you over,
...thinking it might have any pull in this country, ...and on the ground?
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
Please stop, ...my sides are aching! hahahhahhahahhahahhaha
a federal air marshall is one of the top LE positions in this country. thousands of the top people in this field try out for this position, which is only given to a few people. and to be able to wear this badge is an incredible accomplishment that not many people get to do.. being an air marshall means you have a ton of experience, your one of the top marksman in the field, and you are incredible qualified. its not an entry level position. its a position given to the best..if you see an air marshall, you can bet they have more experience then anyone with a gun and a badge. and air marshalls are under direct orders from the secret service.they decide what to do, they are our bosses.. and who has more 'pull' then the SS and the CIA? sure as hell not a the canadian highway patrol.
-
ahhh, ...but that's not what you said is it?
and how does an air marshall kick someone off a plane midflight?
If what you say is true that DHS can kill someone on any flight without having a reason,
then your society is even more far gone than I had thought.
then what did i say?
you obviously cant kick someone off a flight 30,000 feet in the air you bonehead.. you put them into custody.
an air marshal canot kill someone for no reason.. only if they attempt to take over the aircraft.
-
What I said was "reclaim her sexuality" NOT 'regain her womanhood' ::)
There's a big difference between the two. I'm not surprised tho that you use them interchangeably.
From what I have seen, women tie their identity to their sexuality.
-
She didn't lose her sexuality, womanhood or whatever by being kicked off the plane. The only thing the woman tried to reclaim (or claim) by taking her clothes off was money.
-
She didn't lose her sexuality, womanhood or whatever by being kicked off the plane. The only thing the woman tried to reclaim (or claim) by taking her clothes off was money.
Haha. That's true. An AZ radio station was talking about her this morning because of the show she is putting on. They even called her a skank. I love it. What a "classy" way to be a woman. Like I said, whether it's Playboy or not it is still porn and she is till popping her titties out for money. Nothing more than a glorified stripper. At least at Hooters she was clothed getting her tips.
-
Haha. That's true. An AZ radio station was talking about her this morning because of the show she is putting on. They even called her a skank. I love it. What a "classy" way to be a woman. Like I said, whether it's Playboy or not it is still porn and she is till popping her titties out for money. Nothing more than a glorified stripper. At least at Hooters she was clothed getting her tips.
Completely agree.
-
From what I have seen, women tie their identity to their sexuality.
Gotta agree with you there, ...and sadly, ...alot of men tie a women's identity to her sexuality as well
-
a federal air marshall is one of the top LE positions in this country. thousands of the top people in this field try out for this position, which is only given to a few people. and to be able to wear this badge is an incredible accomplishment that not many people get to do.. being an air marshall means you have a ton of experience, your one of the top marksman in the field, and you are incredible qualified. its not an entry level position. its a position given to the best..if you see an air marshall, you can bet they have more experience then anyone with a gun and a badge. and air marshalls are under direct orders from the secret service.they decide what to do, they are our bosses.. and who has more 'pull' then the SS and the CIA? sure as hell not a the canadian highway patrol.
You still haven't answered my question. I know it was a 2 parter, ...but I kept it simple for you.
- Are you stating the YOU are a US Federal Air Marshall?
- And despite whatever prestige the position may have in the US,
did you really think that badge would have any pull in a foreign country on the ground?