4 Bearded Asians Removed From A Flight

Major wrote:An USA Texas pro Muslim site, ya could not make it up.

Original Quill wrote:

Major wrote:Who are you addressing? Eddz

"who ever", don't get it.

She was addressing you.  I happened to agree with her.  There's no misunderstanding.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Be serious.  The loud ones, according to the story, were the women in front of them.  Apparently, they were just tossing some jokes or quips back to them...all in good spirits.

The allegation of any wrongdoing came from the crew, who seemed not to like Muslims.  Everybody else was having a fine time.  End of...  

We've seen it all before.

Well whoever was being loud should have been reprimanded at once. There's far too much noise pollution around.

Major wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

She was addressing you.  I happened to agree with her.  There's no misunderstanding.

My word, eddie said that without moving her lipz.

Major wrote:Where did I call Wolfie "lowlife"? OQ

Major wrote:
Ya cannot take the truth, OQ. along with your pro Muslim gang.

Major wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Tommy, if stupidity were a crime you'd have been locked up long ago.

If asslicking, being pro Muslim was a crime you would be have been locked up long ago.

How can you stick up for Muslims after 911? Ben, you should invent a rule about it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well whoever was being loud should have been reprimanded at once. There's far too much noise pollution around.

Rubbish.  Any other time the airlines encourage passengers to socialize and have a good time.  This was all ideologically sprung, and it was profiling of the simplest kind.  

Good god!  The stews can't even get their lies straight with one another.  Bush league!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


How am I stupid...!?


Give us some examples of things I've said that are stupid...?

The positions of the stars in the sky have shifted, homosexuality is unnatural, gravity isn't a universal force, climate change is a hoax, there are significant genetic differences between people of different races, the UK will be allowed to trade in the single EU market without allowing free movement ... that's just off the top of my head.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

The positions of the stars in the sky have shifted, homosexuality is unnatural, gravity isn't a universal force, climate change is a hoax, there are significant genetic differences between people of different races, the UK will be allowed to trade in the single EU market without allowing free movement ... that's just off the top of my head.

I didn't say stars had shifted... but all are moving through space...

Homosexuality is indeed going against the normal and natural way of the biological design and purpose of our reproductive organs and the basis of attraction being between opposite sexes...

Gravity varies even here on earth's surface at different places... and is a variable force throughout the rest of the universe depending on other factors...

The climate is always changing... depending on solar activity and distance from the sun...

There are genetic differences.

All other countries around the world are able to trade with the single market without being in the eu... or having free movement...

I keep telling you these same truths... and you keep showing your stupidity by failing to understand what I'm saying!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Keep going what...?


I just clarified my position on the things I said... after you misrepresented all of them in your earlier claim...

Tommy Monk wrote:

I've given you enough for you to try to disprove already today...


Come back when you have managed to be able to prove any of it to be wrong...


Or apologise...!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I've given you enough for you to try to disprove already today...


Come back when you have managed to be able to prove any of it to be wrong...


Or apologise...!

I'm sorry for showing everyone what a dummy you are. Happy?

You misunderstand the nature of this -- since you're providing the crank theories that fly in the face of science, you're the one who has to prove you're right.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I've given you enough for you to try to disprove already today...


Come back when you have managed to be able to prove any of it to be wrong...


Or apologise...!

I'm sorry for showing everyone what a dummy you are. Happy?

You misunderstand the nature of this -- since you're providing the crank theories that fly in the face of science, you're the one who has to prove you're right.

I don't think Tommy is a dummy. At least he can think outside of the box, and doesn't follow everyone else like lefties do.

Major wrote:An USA Texas pro Muslim site, ya could not make it up.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think Tommy is a dummy. At least he can think outside of the box, and doesn't follow everyone else like lefties do.

There is nothing great about rejecting the consensus view on everything just because it doesn't agree with your own hateful worldview. In fact, it makes you an intolerable jackass.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

That's not a very logical remark is it?
Sitting 6 rows away in a crowded plane would make it impossible to see much less hear whats going on.
The cabin crew are in a much better position to judge how passengers are behaving not a woman sat 6 rows away.
Odd that no other people sitting alongside them, or 1,2,3,4,5 rows away didn't come to their defence?

The seat pitch on low cost carriers can be as low as 28 inches (71 cm).  Seating 6-rows away, considering seat-back to front-of-seat, or that is 5 rows, or 140-inches away, puts Ms. Clarke less than 15-feet, or 4.57 meters away from the men.

Compare that to cabin staff, who are usually half a plane away, tucked around the corner in the kitchen cabin, or leaning in between the muffling seats, concerned with other passengers ordering meals, etc., I would have to say it's understandable that the stews were making up their stories.

These low-budget airlines pay low-rent wages, so it's understandable that they are going to get UKIP-type employees.  I think we can all see what this story is about.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I've given you enough for you to try to disprove already today...


Come back when you have managed to be able to prove any of it to be wrong...


Or apologise...!

I'm sorry for showing everyone what a dummy you are. Happy?

You misunderstand the nature of this -- since you're providing the crank theories that fly in the face of science, you're the one who has to prove you're right.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think Tommy is a dummy. At least he can think outside of the box, and doesn't follow everyone else like lefties do.

There is nothing great about rejecting the consensus view on everything just because it doesn't agree with your own hateful worldview. In fact, it makes you an intolerable jackass.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

There is nothing great about rejecting the consensus view on everything just because it doesn't agree with your own hateful worldview. In fact, it makes you an intolerable jackass.

Says the fool who thinks little boys should wear fairy dresses which is a rejection of the consensus view that dresses are for girls...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

There is nothing great about rejecting the consensus view on everything just because it doesn't agree with your own hateful worldview. In fact, it makes you an intolerable jackass.

Says the fool who thinks little boys should wear fairy dresses which is a rejection of the consensus view that dresses are for girls...

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Says the fool who thinks little boys should wear fairy dresses which is a rejection of the consensus view that dresses are for girls...

You know, up until the early 20th century, little boys and girls all wore dresses.   A boy wore a dress until the age of 'breeching' and that could be up to age 8.

Tommy Monk wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Says the fool who thinks little boys should wear fairy dresses which is a rejection of the consensus view that dresses are for girls...

You know, up until the early 20th century, little boys and girls all wore dresses.   A boy wore a dress until the age of 'breeching' and that could be up to age 8.

Not normal practice in the wider vast majority of society...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

There is nothing great about rejecting the consensus view on everything just because it doesn't agree with your own hateful worldview. In fact, it makes you an intolerable jackass.

Says the fool who thinks little boys should wear fairy dresses which is a rejection of the consensus view that dresses are for girls...

Good point Tommy.

Tommy Monk wrote:

1250-1300; Middle English gurle, girle, gerle child, young person; compare Old English gyrela, gi (e) rela, item of dress, apparel (presumably worn by the young in late OE period, and hence used as a metonym)

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The seat pitch on low cost carriers can be as low as 28 inches (71 cm).  Seating 6-rows away, considering seat-back to front-of-seat, or that is 5 rows, or 140-inches away, puts Ms. Clarke less than 15-feet, or 4.57 meters away from the men.

Compare that to cabin staff, who are usually half a plane away, tucked around the corner in the kitchen cabin, or leaning in between the muffling seats, concerned with other passengers ordering meals, etc., I would have to say it's understandable that the stews were making up their stories.

These low-budget airlines pay low-rent wages, so it's understandable that they are going to get UKIP-type employees.  I think we can all see what this story is about.

Are you suggesting that people on low pay are members of UKIP? That's quite a leap. You appear to be looking down on those on low pay, which is disgraceful and bigoted.

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Not normal practice in the wider vast majority of society...

yes it was, go read a book tommy. your an embarrasment

 IN ENGLAND males did not wear pants as children they all wore 'smocks' or 'tunics'  cheap and easily adjustiable as the body grows BY far the most widely worn childhood garment in Europe over the past 3,000 years

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting that people on low pay are members of UKIP? That's quite a leap. You appear to be looking down on those on low pay, which is disgraceful and bigoted.

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative." —John Stuart Mill

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a young boy:



JFK Jr. on the right:



Boy's on the right:



Here, just look at this link: https://www.google.com/search?q=boys+used+to+wear+dresses&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimrcyb48fPAhUMTCYKHTzBCAMQ_AUICSgC&biw=1920&bih=970

This is why I get on Tommy. I don't call him a dummy to hurt his feelings, I'm just stating the truth. He is so deeply ignorant about just about every facet of life and yet feels entitled to spread his hateful ignorance everywhere.

Tommy Mosk wrote:Not for the vast majority in wider society in this country...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative." —John Stuart Mill

Let's have your own words to explain your bigoted and arrogant post. Don't hide away behind the words of another person.

Original Quill wrote:Thomas Cook airlines?  Shoulda flown Imil Schwartz.  What's with these (dare I say it?) fly-by-night airlines?  

At first they are accused of saying the word 'bomb' and then they were accused of playing a song on the phone, which did not have WiFi??  Can't the stews at least get together and work out their lies?  

Apparently, they weren't even disruptive:

Daily Mail wrote:Pamela Clarke, 55, from Sheffield, who was sitting six rows away, said: 'I never heard anything about bombs. There was no bad behaviour or anything like that from them. There was a group of women in front of them who were extremely drunk and loud but not them.'

So, it was a classic case of profiling, nothing more.  This is what you get under the leadership vacuum of the Right.  Just make up any story and call the cops.  When lies compete with the truth for equal legitimacy, people just make up stories...no need to bother with facts.

Original Quill wrote:Thomas Cook airlines?  Shoulda flown Imil Schwartz.  What's with these (dare I say it?) fly-by-night airlines?  

At first they are accused of saying the word 'bomb' and then they were accused of playing a song on the phone, which did not have WiFi??  Can't the stews at least get together and work out their lies?  

Apparently, they weren't even disruptive:

Daily Mail wrote:Pamela Clarke, 55, from Sheffield, who was sitting six rows away, said: 'I never heard anything about bombs. There was no bad behaviour or anything like that from them. There was a group of women in front of them who were extremely drunk and loud but not them.'

So, it was a classic case of profiling, nothing more.  This is what you get under the leadership vacuum of the Right.  Just make up any story and call the cops.  When lies compete with the truth for equal legitimacy, people just make up stories...no need to bother with facts.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


How am I stupid...!?


Give us some examples of things I've said that are stupid...?

The positions of the stars in the sky have shifted, homosexuality is unnatural, gravity isn't a universal force, climate change is a hoax, there are significant genetic differences between people of different races, the UK will be allowed to trade in the single EU market without allowing free movement ... that's just off the top of my head.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


How am I stupid...!?


Give us some examples of things I've said that are stupid...?

The positions of the stars in the sky have shifted as seen from a fixed point in space, homosexuality is unnatural, gravity isn't a universal force, climate change is a hoax, there are significant genetic differences between people of different races, the UK will be allowed to trade in the single EU market without allowing free movement ... that's just off the top of my head.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

The positions of the stars in the sky have shifted, homosexuality is unnatural, gravity isn't a universal force, climate change is a hoax, there are significant genetic differences between people of different races, the UK will be allowed to trade in the single EU market without allowing free movement ... that's just off the top of my head.

I didn't say stars had shifted... but all are moving through space...


Homosexuality is indeed going against the normal and natural way of the biological design and purpose of our reproductive organs and the basis of attraction being between opposite sexes...


Gravity varies even here on earth's surface at different places... and is a variable force throughout the rest of the universe depending on other factors...


The climate is always changing... depending on solar activity and distance from the sun...


There are genetic differences.


All other countries around the world are able to trade with the single market without being in the eu... or having free movement...



I keep telling you these same truths... and you keep showing your stupidity by failing to understand what I'm saying!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I've given you enough for you to try to disprove already today...


Come back when you have managed to be able to prove any of it to be wrong...


Or apologise...!

I'm sorry for showing everyone what a dummy you are. Happy?

You misunderstand the nature of this -- since you're providing the crank theories that fly in the face of science, you're the one who has to prove you're right.

Ben Reilly wrote:Oh wait, don't you think the moon landing was a hoax as well?