# Incidents on planes are tense, but 'pajama pants' ?



## winger (Jun 18, 2011)

Not sure what this guy is thinking, but if both the plane's pilot and police officer are insisting you are doing something wrong, wouldn't you pause a moment and reconsider your actions?  Check out the video:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...r-bailed-out-after-baggy-pants-arrest-at-sfo/


----------



## pjrose (Jun 18, 2011)

winger said:


> Not sure what this guy is thinking, but if both the plane's pilot and police officer are insisting you are doing something wrong, wouldn't you pause a moment and reconsider your actions?  Check out the video:
> 
> http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...r-bailed-out-after-baggy-pants-arrest-at-sfo/



Not sure why he called them pajama pants.  Usually the extremely low ones I see are jeans.  I have no idea how they can walk in them.  If he actually pulled them DOWN when he sat, then he was just being belligerent. 

Regarding pajamas, on an early-morning cross-country flight back from a band trip, DD stayed in her PJs.  They were full-coverage, and when I met the bus full of kids when they finally reached home, I thought she looked comfy and cute.  In retrospect it probably wasn't appropriate.....but on the other hand how different are flannel PJs from sweats?


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 18, 2011)

Our school district does not permit kids to wear flannel pajama pants to school.  We had kids showing up for school in flannel pajama pants and matching pajama shirts and slippers!


----------



## pjrose (Jun 18, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Our school district does not permit kids to wear flannel pajama pants to school.  We had kids showing up for school in flannel pajama pants and matching pajama shirts and slippers!



Neither does ours, except in elementary school on "Pajama Day".  

I was kind of surprised the chaperones let her wear them on the plane.  After a week chaperoning about 100 band students, the chaperones were probably ready for the looney bin and, at 5AM, oblivious to her outfit.


----------



## winger (Jun 18, 2011)

pjrose said:


> Not sure why he called them pajama pants.  Usually the extremely low ones I see are jeans.  I have no idea how they can walk in them.  If he actually pulled them DOWN when he sat, then he was just being belligerent.
> 
> Regarding pajamas, on an early-morning cross-country flight back from a band trip, DD stayed in her PJs.  They were full-coverage, and when I met the bus full of kids when they finally reached home, I thought she looked comfy and cute.  In retrospect it probably wasn't appropriate.....but on the other hand how different are flannel PJs from sweats?



Apparently he not only pull down his pants while he sat down on the plane, but he also showed his underwear when he was walking, as far as I understood from the article..


----------



## Kal (Jun 18, 2011)

But some people can wear pajamas in the court room (Michael Jackson)!


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 18, 2011)

We probably won't know what really happened, until his hearing, but the news article says that after he was asked to pull his pants up, he sat in his seat and "pulled his pants all the way down."  I am not sure what the definition of "all the way down" is, but as a woman, I probably would have been uncomfortable sitting next to him, if he was intentionally flaunting his underwear.

When my kids were teens and told me they had the "right" to do something crazy, I always reminded them that you never hear of a martyr with a happy life.  My guess is that his coach and university are not making his life very happy right about now.

(Brace yourself for Ride's incoming post about police brutality and the older generation's lack of fashion savvy.   )


----------



## winger (Jun 18, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> We probably won't know what really happened, until his hearing, but the news article says that after he was asked to pull his pants up, he sat in his seat and "pulled his pants all the way down."  I am not sure what the definition of "all the way down" is, but as a woman, I probably would have been uncomfortable sitting next to him, if he was intentionally flaunting his underwear.



I wonder if his undies came down a well?  I can just imagine that this guy would have been capable of making a 'don't touch my junk'  scene at the security checkpoint.  it woulda been nice to be able to see 2 videos of this idiot from the same trip!

But in all seriousness, think I injuring a police officer is a pretty serious offense in my opinion.  The guy has really taken it to another level.


----------



## pjrose (Jun 18, 2011)

winger said:


> I wonder if his undies came down a well?  I can just imagine that this guy would have made a 'don't touch my junk'  scene at the security checkpoint as well.



Ewwwwwwwww


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 18, 2011)

I watched the video (and you cannot see him at all) and he was very respectful in his speech throughout the incident. 

There is a common misconception that it is okay to resist an unlawful arrest. A person must obey the instructions of a police officer as long as he is instructing you to do something that is not unlawful and not unsafe. (It is not against the law to refuse to kill someone or jump off of a bridge for instance). 

I doubt that this young man realizes that his saying, "I am not doing anything unlawful. I'm not hurting anyone." is resisting arrest. But it is when it is accompanied by his failure to follow the instruction to get up and leave. 

It is a sad situation. He probably is feeling that the world is unjust as it is - since he was coming from the funeral of a friend that had been killed. My heart goes out to him ... and at the same time, I would want to say, "What are you thinking!"

One of the things that I found, both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, is that a jury is much more likely to find someone not guilty if they are respectful. Both tone of voice and words that this young man is saying are both respectful. As a prosecutor, I would be sorely tempted to decline to prosecute based on my experience with similarly well behaved young accused persons.


elaine


----------



## Patri (Jun 18, 2011)

glypnirsgirl said:


> One of the things that I found, both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, is that a jury is much more likely to find someone not guilty if they are respectful. Both tone of voice and words that this young man is saying are both respectful. As a prosecutor, I would be sorely tempted to decline to prosecute based on my experience with similarly well behaved young accused persons.
> 
> 
> elaine



I have spoken to well-behaved young people, in my home even, and they have school rap sheets a page long, including expulsion. One boy later committed an armed robbery. He was on our basketball team. So while what you say is true, I hope a jury could also sort the facts.


----------



## jlwquilter (Jun 18, 2011)

I saw a young man recently on the street and his pants seat was below his bum entirely. He was wearing boxers. TMI for me!

My DH just laughs at these guys, He says that they think they are so cool and tough because it comes from prsion. But what they miss is that it's the guys advertising their sexual availability to other prisoners that wear their pants like this. I do not know if that is true but if it is and it gets publicized I wonder how fast the pants will come back up!


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 18, 2011)

jlwquilter said:


> I saw a young man recently on the street and his pants seat was below his bum entirely. He was wearing boxers. TMI for me!
> 
> My DH just laughs at these guys, He says that they think they are so cool and tough because it comes from prsion. But what they miss is that it's the guys advertising their sexual availability to other prisoners that wear their pants like this. I do not know if that is true but if it is and it gets publicized I wonder how fast the pants will come back up!



I have been told that for years ... and I have always thought the same thing.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 19, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> (Brace yourself for Ride's incoming post about police brutality and the older generation's lack of fashion savvy.   )



Haha..its not about police brutality in this case....its more about the prision state we live in....where the police believe they can arrest you for anything...and believe they have the right to invade the privacy of any law abiding citizen just because they don't like the way they dress or the accent they have..

When i read this article i thought of the guy on the far left






I've dressed just like that when i was in high school...my pants completely below my butt...if it offends you....get over it..theres nothing illegal about it...if we are making things illegal can we please start with socks with sandels or bolo ties, atleast those things everyone agrees are ugly

If we start the police arresting and bothering people for things that aren't crimes.....where does it end?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 19, 2011)

Ride, it's ugly and unattractive.  Come on!  I thought it was out of style, too.  My sons were in junior high when this fad started, and they are now 34 and 32.  Ugly look.  

My dead grandma would hand that kid a belt and say, "Use it, or I will." :rofl:

I know one kid my daughter dated had such a tiny set of hips, his pants didn't stay up at all.  He would walk along, and his pants would fall down naturally, and he would pull them up embarrassed.  He is now 30.  

The kid would have been okay on the plane with pajama pants, but this kid had underwear showing, too.  I don't want to see it, and most people feel the same way.  I didn't think he was being rude, just as Elaine said, but I couldn't see how he looked sitting there.  THANK HEAVEN FOR THAT!


----------



## winger (Jun 19, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> ...my pants completely below my butt...if it offends you....get over it..theres nothing illegal about it...if we are making things illegal can we please start with socks with sandels or bolo ties, atleast those things everyone agrees are ugly
> ....



You pointed out exactly what is the issue with this incident.  It is very obvious from reading the article and the various posts here that showing ones underwear, especially of a grown man's underpants, is considered offensive.  Society is about living with one another, respecting each other. Knowingly being offensive to someone else is not being respectful.

At times, laws or rules are made to ensure everyone can abide by some basic common set  of rules.  In this case, although there is no law against wearing the pants below the butt, the airline did have the policy against exposing ones underwear.   He was apparently given several notices by the airline employees that he was in their house and was breaking their rules, so no excuse here of not knowing. The boy was just being an ass, and he was working the system by playing the "be respectful" card so he could maybe get some sympathy from some.  So the boy should have (using your words) just 'gotten over it' ('it' meaning acting ignorant and not knowing he was violating some rule) and respected that rule or find another means of transportation, like maybe drive his self or take Greyhound. 

Similarly, although there its no rule against wearing tank tops in restaurants, restaurants have been known to enforce certain dress codes and can/will refuse service to anyone who violates the dress code.


----------



## am1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I've dressed just like that when i was in high school...my pants completely below my butt...if it offends you....get over it..theres nothing illegal about it...if we are making things illegal can we please start with socks with sandels or bolo ties, atleast those things everyone agrees are ugly



And I am sure you looked like a fool with your pants on the ground.

But you are right that other things should be enforced as well on airplanes and other places.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 19, 2011)

am1 said:


> And I am sure you looked like a fool with your pants on the ground.
> 
> But you are right that other things should be enforced as well on airplanes and other places.



Can we ban them old folks that wear their pants so high that you can see their pasty ankles and cankles?  Or hopefully just anyone over 80yrs old on airplanes? It offends my senses having to see people that age and their untanned legs

The point i'm making is, if you start setting rules and laws because it may offend someone...you'll find before long...everything is banned or illegal


----------



## camachinist (Jun 19, 2011)

Here's the primary issue, funky undies notwithstanding:



> Marman, who was boarding Flight 488 to Albuquerque, N.M., was instructed by airline crew members several times to pull up his pants to cover his underwear, both before he boarded and on the plane



Here's the verbiage of FAR Part 91, subsection 91.11:

 Sec. 91.11  Prohibition against interference with crewmembers.

    No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.

To a perhaps equivalent degree, Section 91.3:

  Sec. 91.3  Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

    (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is
  the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.


While a civil court could adjudicate any damages suffered by a passenger resulting from improper use of aircrew authority, the FAR's appear to make disobeying that authority a criminal act.

If the young man in question had kept his mouth shut and hitched up his pants, he would've arrived at ABQ on-time. He made a choice. 

FWIW, I've dealt with some bizarre requests from aircrews and suffered what I felt was abuse in a few cases. I had to decide whether pushing back was appropriate and what the consequences of that choice might be. I chose to comply (no request ever endangered my physical safety) and deal with the matter later through appropriate complaint channels. I've also seen other pax push back and end up, like the young man, in handcuffs being taken off the plane. One which stands out was a man who refused to change seats on a little 30 pax Brasilia for weight and balance. He essentially refused a direct order from the PIC (pilot in command). He wasn't angry, didn't use profanity, never was physically aggressive. He simply politely refused to comply. Took him away in handcuffs. We were delayed an hour and whole bunch of paperwork was generated accounting for a large part of the delay. I was asked to fill out an incident report, which I did. 

IMO, there's a time and place to challenge authority but when on a densely-packed aluminum tube is not the time.


----------



## Mel (Jun 19, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Can we ban them old folks that wear their pants so high that you can see their pasty ankles and cankles?  Or hopefully just anyone over 80yrs old on airplanes? It offends my senses having to see people that age and their untanned legs
> 
> The point i'm making is, if you start setting rules and laws because it may offend someone...you'll find before long...everything is banned or illegal


Such laws and rules already exist.  Are you going to claim it's OK to walk through town without ANY clothes?  Most of the laws are written such that something found offensive by an "ordinary" person may be banned.  Wearing pants that way has not yet reached that level, but perhaps it should.

We are all a part of society, and it is reasonable for society to set limitations on some of what we wear.  Wear your pants that way at your home, but you're not welcome in mine with them worn that low.  My neighborhood is part of my home too, along with the rest of my neighbors.  We will respect your right to wear your pants that way, but you need to respect our right to refuse service to you.  Unless you can claim your attire is based on some form of religious requirement, I doubt you would be able to charge me with discrimination.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 19, 2011)

camachinist said:


> IMO, there's a time and place to challenge authority but when on a densely-packed aluminum tube is not the time.



I don't agree with all of your post(what he was doing in no way interfere'd with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated. and i didn't see where the pilot used his authority...

BUT, the part i quoted above...I agree with 100+% there is no question about it there is a time and a place to challenge authority and maybe this wasn't it


----------



## Kay H (Jun 19, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> (what he was doing in no way interfere'd with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated. and i didn't see where the pilot used his authority...





You don't know this.  You weren't on the plane and the you tube video wasn't all inclusive and did not even show the passenger involved.


I also take it that you don't like "old folks".


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 19, 2011)

Kay H said:


> You don't know this.  You weren't on the plane and the you tube video wasn't all inclusive and did not even show the passenger involved.



The presumption of innocence is still very important in america...if there is no proof that he interfere'd with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated then the American system insists that he didn't



> I also take it that you don't like "old folks".



I don't mind old people...Heck my parents are ancient...They're both in the 60's...i don't mind them


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 19, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Haha..its not about police brutality in this case....its more about the prision state we live in....where the police believe they can arrest you for anything...and believe they have the right to invade the privacy of any law abiding citizen just because they don't like the way they dress or the accent they have..
> 
> When i read this article i thought of the guy on the far left
> 
> ...



ok, so I'm confused...if your pants don't cover your butt, what's the point of wearing them at all? 

Here's the thing, Ride.  When you walk around with your pants around your ankles, and your ball cap turned cock eyed, decent, respectable people look at you and assume you are stupid.  

When we were kids,  (before the days of PC) if you wanted to make fun of someone stupid  you turned your hat cock-eyed on your head.  So those of us over 40 (read, MOST  of the population-or atleast most of the working, tax paying, responsibly contributing members of society) still remembers those days, and we look at people like that as though they are morons.   The people with their pants below their butts?  Well, I suppose they would be even bigger morons. But I have to ask, did you pull your pants up to go on an interview?  If you did, then that right there shows that you got it was a moronic thing to do.  If you didn't..well then...just sayin,.


----------



## camachinist (Jun 19, 2011)

If a crewmember construes a pax'es comportment, appearance, effects, etc, etc, to be a breach of airline policy or an unsafe condition for the aircraft and /or its passengers, and instructs a passenger as a result, the passenger's compliance is called out in the FAR's. It's not up to the passenger to decide if the request/order is reasonable. Like I said, I've been faced with numerous unreasonable and sometimes abusive requests/actions, but sitting in that tube isn't the time to push back. I can almost guarantee if one does, one will end up in the back of a police car. That's just how it is these days. 

Typically, IME, if the pax doesn't comply with a FA request, it escalates to the purser/lead if the aircraft is so staffed and then, if still no compliance, to the PIC. The PIC is 'god' on the aircraft. If a captain comes to one's seat with other than a smile on his/her face, it's going to be an uncomfortable day.


----------



## tombo (Jun 19, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Haha..its not about police brutality in this case....its more about the prision state we live in....where the police believe they can arrest you for anything...and believe they have the right to invade the privacy of any law abiding citizen just because they don't like the way they dress...
> 
> I've dressed just like that when i was in high school...my pants completely below my butt...if it offends you....get over it..theres nothing illegal about it...if we are making things illegal can we please start with socks with sandels or bolo ties, atleast those things everyone agrees are ugly
> 
> If we start the police arresting and bothering people for things that aren't crimes.....where does it end?



Walking around in public showing one's underwear is an unacceptable style for most people. For you it is fine, for most people it is not. You feel that no matter how many people they offend that they should be able to show their underwear if they want to. I don't want my wife, my daughter, or even myself to have to look at some guys underwear on a plane, in the mall, or even walking down the street. Why do you feel their desire to pull their pants down in public is more important than the majority of people's desire to have them pull them up?

I guess according to your feelings a woman should also be able to lift her dress up and walk around with her panties on display because she feels like it. Perhaps even better she can tuck the back of her dress into her bra strap on her back and walk around with her panties on display all day creating a new fashion style. Ramp it up a notch and make the panties a thong. Heck why not go one step further and tuck the front of her dress into the front of her bra too so that all can admire her panties both coming and going. I don't think that is ilegal per se either, but it is not acceptable for public display in most US locales.

Just because someone wants to walk around with their underwear showing in public does not give them the right to do so. The people walking around them have rights too.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 19, 2011)

tombo said:


> Just because someone wants to walk around with their underwear showing in public does not give them the right to do so. The people walking around them have rights too.



No one persons rights trumps another...its just that simple...i'm offended by hawaiian shirts bolo ties and cowboy hats...Doctors and dentists wearing biker jackets offend me also...Old folks wearing socks and sandals or wearing their pants so high it shows off their pasty ankles offends alot of people...

I think you have it backward when you say people wearing baggy pants offend the majority, the majority grew up with that as a common everyday fashion style...from MTV to all the celebrities they grew up watching...the basketball players, rappers, musicians we all listened to dressed like that, these people are the modern day CEO's, Executive's, and Business professionals..the only people that are offended are those out of the system, those collecting retirement off of our hard work....i'm 100% that the majority are more offended by the fashion choices i mentioned above then some guy walking around showing his shorts(no ones sagging their pants and wearing tighty whiteys or european cut underwear) under his pants...


----------



## pjrose (Jun 19, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> ok, so I'm confused...if your pants don't cover your butt, what's the point of wearing them at all?  . . .



Good one Laura!  

I think it's pretty funny (in a pathetic way) to watch them try to walk - or waddle - and imagine trying to run!


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 19, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> But I have to ask, did you pull your pants up to go on an interview?  If you did, then that right there shows that you got it was a moronic thing to do.  If you didn't..well then...just sayin,.



This is a good question...i wear a baseball hat 90% of the time...But would never wear one at work...when walking around the house or going out quick, i'll go out wearing an A-shirt(usually not white undershirt type, but sometimes), i'd never go to work like that...i love jeans and sneakers, but wouldn't think about wearing sneakers with my slacks and button up at work...i have a pair of glasses i use at home that are a bit rough looking, but comfortable, a pair of glasses for work that are a bit dressier...and contacts for parties and special occasions

There are different styles of dress for different environments...The business professional look hasn't changed much overtime...a basic suit with a nice pair of dress shoes....and that's how you dress for an interview...if it was in style to dress like i would hanging out at the handball courts or friends party at work...that would be how you'd dress for an interview


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 19, 2011)

> I guess according to your feelings a woman should also be able to lift her dress up and walk around with her panties on display because she feels like it. Perhaps even better she can tuck the back of her dress into her bra strap on her back and walk around with her panties on display all day creating a new fashion style. Ramp it up a notch and make the panties a thong. Heck why not go one step further and tuck the front of her dress into the front of her bra too so that all can admire her panties both coming and going. I don't think that is ilegal per se either, but it is not acceptable for public display in most US locales.



Big difference here.  Men would love it, even the old guys.  But women are not going to think these guys are "hot" with underwear showing.  Most women with brains think the guys look a little ridiculous, and some women think it's just stupid.  I fall into the latter category; I think these young men look uneducated and downright stupid.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 19, 2011)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Big difference here.  Men would love it, even the old guys.  But women are not going to think these guys are "hot" with underwear showing.  Most women with brains think the guys look a little ridiculous, and some women think it's just stupid.  I fall into the latter category; I think these young men look uneducated and downright stupid.



I'm guessing at age...i'm sorry if i'm guessing wrong....How do you think you parents generation felt about the big hair, huge loop earrings, leg warmers and gloves without fingers in the 80's....I'm thinking its the same way you guys feel about our fashion styles now


----------



## Patri (Jun 19, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Old folks wearing socks and sandals or wearing their pants so high it shows off their pasty ankles offends alot of people...



I doubt anyone is offended by this except you. Call back in 20 or 30 years when you are one of them.
As people age their body shape changes. For many the body mass shrinks and it really is hard to find well-fitting clothing. The guys needs belts, and maybe they have lost some height, and their waists are smaller, so they have to pull the pants higher to keep them on.
What are pasty ankles?
Maybe the socks keep their feet warm, or cover rugged toenails which would also offend you.
Senior citizens are some of the neatest people on this planet, and you would learn much by becoming friends with them.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 19, 2011)

Patri said:


> What are pasty ankles?



Basicly pale, white ankles...the color of paste...this fits for many of the older generation...but everyone on this forum are vacation junkies..i'm sure most of you guys have pretty and tan ankles!


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 19, 2011)

This reminds of one of my less astute students.  In class one day, she announced that she wants to die before she is 40, because she doesn't want to get wrinkles.  Even the other teenagers thought that was hysterical.

Ride - here are some questions for you-

-Do you still sag?  If not, why not?

-Would you go as far as this young man did to defend your right to sag?  What if your  daughter was with you?

-Will you have any rules for the way your daughter dresses when she's a teenager?  Or will anything go?

-How are you going to dress when you are 50+?  Your peers (and everyone else) will think it's a hoot if you try to dress like a teenager.

As far as the picture you posted, I don't know anyone who dressed like that in real life.  Maybe on TV, but no one I know would have been caught dead dressed like that, and I went to college in the San Francisco Bay Area, so I wasn't out in the boon docks somewhere.

BTW - I don't have a problem with any style (on someone else) as long as it isn't gang related and it meets the standards of common decency.

*Here is your TUG Mom speaking* - you are not making any friends here by making cutting remarks about people over 50.  We are not talking about YOU - we are talking about a story in the news - please try to find some distance and not make your comments so personal.


----------



## tombo (Jun 19, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I'm guessing at age...i'm sorry if i'm guessing wrong....How do you think you parents generation felt about the big hair, huge loop earrings, leg warmers and gloves without fingers in the 80's....I'm thinking its the same way you guys feel about our fashion styles now



I am from the 70's/ 80's and NEVER dated or even went on a date with anyone who dressed like that. I never had a friend who went on a date with someone who dressed like that. There was a fringe extreme rare few who wore those outfits. Other than models, actresses, and singers, your average  people did not dress like that. Just like punk rockers, goths, whiggers, lady GaGa's monsters etc are are a fringe groups with few mainstream followers. 

I have a daughter who has an MBA, is married, and owns her own business, and she never dressed like Madonna or Pink or a stripper. It would not have been acceptable in my house. Her Husband never wore baggy pants with his underwear showing. Not one guy ever came to my house with piercings, tatoos, saggy pants, or anything like that. If they had I would have run them off. 

My son is in Med school and he NEVER wore saggy pants with his butt hanging out. His friends never wore those pants in high school or college either. Yes there were kids who did, but most ended up never going to college and are now working in Head Shops, tatoo parlors, or living at home with mom and dad playing video games all day. 

People dress like the people the want to emulate. Criminal and gangsta wanna be's dress like gangsta's. Gang members wear the same colors. Motorcycle gangs wear the jackets. Dr's wear scrubs. Lawyers wear suits and ties. Fraternity and sorority people usually dress preppy. Pot heads wear the baggy frayed jeans with holes in them and t-shirts with peace signs and Jimmy Hendrix on them. As far as judging a book by it's cover some things are beyond your control, but what you wear isn't. If you don't want to be considered ignorant, uneducated, criminal, a thug, etc don't dress in a manner that makes people think you are.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 19, 2011)

I am much older than that, Ride.  :rofl: 

My kids range in age from 30-34, and I didn't have them as a teenager, either.  

I was teaching middle school English during the beginning of the fashion trend toward sagging jeans.  The girls were not that impressed with it, and the boys got into trouble for wearing their pants that way.  It started as a gang thing, daring to wear pants that low, knowing it was against the rules.


----------



## Carol C (Jun 19, 2011)

P.S. Sporting a red bandana usually means you've got a gang affiliation (pants on the ground...or not). 



Ridewithme38 said:


> Haha..its not about police brutality in this case....its more about the prision state we live in....where the police believe they can arrest you for anything...and believe they have the right to invade the privacy of any law abiding citizen just because they don't like the way they dress or the accent they have..
> 
> When i read this article i thought of the guy on the far left
> 
> ...


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 19, 2011)

Some people struggle with self esteem.

Others seem to struggle with self respect.

Because no self respecting person would dress in the manner shown in that picture.  And I don't know anyone who deliberately dresses to appear dumber than they really are. 

Perhaps though I just hang with the "wrong" people...? 

In the meantime, I think I will treat Ride like my annoying little brother.

Ignore him, and maybe he will go away.......


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 19, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> In the meantime, I think I will treat Ride like my annoying little brother.
> 
> Ignore him, and maybe he will go away.......



I don't mind this association...i consider my posting style like that of the annoying little brother...or the drunk uncle who you can't get to stop talking once he gets going on a story....In general i'm a good guy...but i do tend to ramble on about things....that in general, i could go either way on...

I understand how the older generation could look at kids with sagging pants as low-brow, the people they are emulating with those styles aren't exactly the highly educated, enlightened members of society....I get that

but i also understand that kids need to express themselves somehow...if a kid dressing rebelliously keeps him from rebelling by shooting up getting deep into drugs or getting involved in petty crimes...i support that

Someone asked me if i still walk around with my pants sagging(i wore a 36 waist pants and i was at most a 32 waist so i wore higher then the photos, but below my waist about half butt) and a cockeyed hat...well i still wear a hat on days off(I'm thinning younger then i'm happy about so unless i'm at work or a special function...you won't see me without a hat) but my pants now fit me...i'd say in 99% of cases, this is a fashion style that kids grow out of by their first-second year of college...its a faze, something kids can do to express themselves without really doing any long term harm...compared to some of the other things kids do to 'fight the system'.....this is about last thing to worry about or attack them for


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jun 20, 2011)

In my parents' house, us kids brought or made almost all our own clothes. If you didn't want it bleached, shrunk, ripped, "missing", lost, etc, you made sure it was never under their roof or in their cars. And as my Dad served the meat, your attitude reflected the food he passed to you on your plate.

Even my idiot brother told his wife to stop with the liberal political rag to his dad - she might have not liked roast beef or steak, but my brother sure did. Dad was serving them a bite size piece of fat and gristle on each of their plates.


----------



## Bunk (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> No one persons rights trumps another...its just that simple...
> 
> 
> That is absurd.  Is my right to litter equal to society's rights against littering.
> ...


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

Bunk said:


> The problem is that even in the year 2011 it is not acceptable conduct to show your underwear or your junk on a common carrier such as a plane.



I agree this is a big problem...if someone wearing a layered look showing off what amounts to a pair of basketball shorts is so offensive to ONE flight attendant that that flight attendant has to make a scene on a plane...thats an issue we should deal with

And i can't believe i have to explain this...these boxers aren't like like walking around showing off your underwear like if you were wearing tighty whiteys or jockeys or even boxer briefs...they're basicly shorts...if you offended by seeing someone in shorts so much, you really need to figure out whats wrong with you...Heck, alot of you grew up in the 50's-60's...these boxers cover more then the regular basketball shorts that you guys wore back then...were you offended seeing basketball players in the 50's?






Is you offended just because you're calling them underwear??  Lets start calling them Boxer SHORTS then...that'll solve everything


----------



## tombo (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I agree this is a big problem...if someone wearing a layered look showing off what amounts to a pair of basketball shorts is so offensive to ONE flight attendant that that flight attendant has to make a scene on a plane...thats an issue we should deal with
> 
> And i can't believe i have to explain this...these boxers aren't like like walking around showing off your underwear like if you were wearing tighty whiteys or jockeys or even boxer briefs...they're basicly shorts...if you offended by seeing someone in shorts so much, you really need to figure out whats wrong with you...Heck, alot of you grew up in the 50's-60's...these boxers cover more then the regular basketball shorts that you guys wore back then...were you offended seeing basketball players in the 50's?



I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult. A pre schooler maybe, but an adult? Here it is:


Underwear is called underwear because it is meant to be worn UNDER other garments (boxer shorts are labelled as underwear on the package). PE shorts/basketball shorts are meant to be worn on the basketball court OVER underwear. Those basketball players you showed in the pictures had underwear on under those shorts but they didn't pull their shorts down in the back so you could see their underwear. Nuff said.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

tombo said:


> I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult. A pre schooler maybe, but an adult? Here it is:
> 
> 
> Underwear is called underwear because it is meant to be worn UNDER other garments (boxer shorts are labelled as underwear on the package). PE shorts/basketball shorts are meant to be worn on the basketball court OVER underwear. Those basketball players you showed in the pictures had underwear on under those shorts but they didn't pull their shorts down in the back so you could see their underwear. Nuff said.



Yes Technically Boxer shorts are underwear...sorta like how white V-neck T-shirts are underwear or A-shirts are Underwear, they are meant to be worn UNDER dress shirts...my point is there is nothing obscene about walking around with an A-shirt or white v-neck Tshirt...boxer shorts cover as much as most basketball shorts....acting like someones junk is on display because they are sagging their pants and showing off something with the same amount of material as everyday shorts....is a bit intellectually dishonest

If its a label issue, because they're labeled as underwear, like the shirts i mentioned above(it was in style for a minute to wear these on top of the pants) well, that's a bit short sighted...i have some carry on luggage that i've only used for drive to locations....that should really make you made if the above does!


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 20, 2011)

Interesting discussion re fashion attire and I can see both sides of the argument.  However, I think Camachinist's posts are the most germane to the airplane incident.  If you are riding in someone else's transport, they get to make the rules.  You don't have the right to insist on having it your way while in someone else's house.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> Interesting discussion re fashion attire and I can see both sides of the argument.  However, I think Camachinist's posts are the most germane to the airplane incident.  If you are riding in someone else's transport, they get to make the rules.  You don't have the right to insist on having it your way while in someone else's house.



No question in the end...the main thing is, your house, your rules...and now i'm going to wonder off a little...

No question your house your rules...But once you set a list of rules and have them posted publicly as a policy, framed and posted on the front door(Or airlines website)....can you really go about adding and taking away from those rules willy nilly....If the only dress code specific rules i post are no suspenders or cowboy boots and i see someone i don't like, can i decide that now i am adding, no white socks, sandals and hawaiian shirts worn together...at that moment?  I mean it kind of makes the posted rules less viable if you are changing them on a whim...Right?  I understand the need to be flexable with rules, you can't pre-plan every situation...BUT how do you follow rules that have selective enforcement and that are constantly evolving?


----------



## Weimaraner (Jun 20, 2011)

rickandcindy23 said:


> It started as a gang thing, daring to wear pants that low, knowing it was against the rules.



A local police chief in a high crime area attempted to lead an effort to ban the low pants trend. The reasoning was that it became a fashion trend from prisoners who had to take their belts off in prison hence the low low pants. Like the red bandanna in the photo, it can be a fashion statement or it can symbolize trouble. Not sure of the facts, but just relaying what was a big issue in the area. Also as a child of the 1980s, I'd like to say that we didn't dress like Madonna just like most people walking around like today's Madonna Lady Gaga.


----------



## tombo (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Yes Technically Boxer shorts are underwear...sorta like how white V-neck T-shirts are underwear or A-shirts are Underwear, they are meant to be worn UNDER dress shirts...my point is there is nothing obscene about walking around with an A-shirt or white v-neck Tshirt...boxer shorts cover as much as most basketball shorts....acting like someones junk is on display because they are sagging their pants and showing off something with the same amount of material as everyday shorts....is a bit intellectually dishonest



Panties cover the same amount of butt as a bikini bottom does. Panties and bikini bottoms have about the same amount of material. Using your analogy since women wear bikinis on the beach they should be able to walk down the street or board a plane in their panties. For that matter bikini tops and bras cover the same amount of skin and have about the same amount of material. You must feel that it is OK for a woman to walk down the street and board planes in nothing but her bra and panties. She wears the same type of attire on the beach and it is legal on the beach, so why not everywhere?. If a woman wants to wear her bikini or bra and panties to Starbucks, or to work,  or even to church why shouldn't she be able to? it doesn't matter who she offends according to you because all that matters is that she wants to wear it and it is not illegal to wear other places......

I am just carrying your ridiculous hypothesis one step further since you want to be intellectual about it. Get real.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

tombo said:


> Panties cover the same amount of butt as a bikini bottom does. Panties and bikini bottoms have about the same amount of material. Using your analogy since women wear bikinis on the beach they should be able to walk down the street or board a plane in their panties. For that matter bikini tops and bras cover the same amount of skin and have about the same amount of material. You must feel that it is OK for a woman to walk down the street and board planes in nothing but her bra and panties. She wears the same type of attire on the beach and it is legal on the beach, so why not everywhere?. If a woman wants to wear her bikini or bra and panties to Starbucks, or to work,  or even to church why shouldn't she be able to? it doesn't matter who she offends according to you because all that matters is that she wants to wear it and it is not illegal to wear other places......
> 
> I am just carrying your ridiculous hypothesis one step further since you want to be intellectual about it. Get real.



Your seem to completely ignore that women aren't allowed to wear bathing suits in these locations already...Men ARE allowed to wear shorts though...Comparing an already prohibited clothing option to another prohibited clothing option is NOT the same as comparing a NON-PROHIBITED item to a Possibly prohibited item....Its like say...a Gun fires off like a Crossbow...so why shouldn't you be able to fire a gun at church....Its just not a valid point...you can't do either

i think you intentionally overlooked this....BUT by over looking this rather significant thing...you invalidated your point...


----------



## tombo (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Your seem to completely ignore that women aren't allowed to wear bathing suits in these locations already...Men ARE allowed to wear shorts though...Comparing an already prohibited clothing option to another prohibited clothing option is NOT the same as comparing a NON-PROHIBITED item to a Possibly prohibited item....Its like say...a Gun fires off like a Crossbow...so why shouldn't you be able to fire a gun at church....Its just not a valid point...you can't do either
> 
> i think you intentionally overlooked this....BUT by over looking this rather significant thing...you invalidated your point...



Wrong! Women are allowed to wear bathing suits on the streets and in stores in many locations. I have never been to a church with a written dress code that bans the wearing of bathing suits.Try miami beach, venice beach etc, etc to see women i restaurants, on the street, in stores, hailing cabs in bikinis. So if bathing suits are legal why not bra and panties in those locations.

You ignore that sagging pants and exposed boxer shorts are not allowed on planes, in many stores, in many schools, on many public streets, at many night cliubs, in many casinos, etc, etc, etc. The entire thread is about them removing someone because he wouldn't pull his pants up on a plane and so he violated their dress code. You ignore this point so every post you have made is invalid.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

tombo said:


> The entire thread is about them removing someone because he wouldn't pull his pants up on a plane and so he violated their dress code. You ignore this point so every post you have made is invalid.



This entire thread is about the rediculousness behind someone being judged and taken off of a plane because some flight attendent didn't like the way they looked or dressed...You can twist it any way you want...But in the end...thats what its about...People being denied service because of how they look...you seem to be fine with that....but i NEVER will be...

maybe we should just agree to disagree?


----------



## tombo (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> ...But in the end...thats what its about...People being denied service because of how they look...you seem to be fine with that....but i NEVER will be...
> 
> maybe we should just agree to disagree?



Not OK to remove someone for how they look. How you look to some extent is beyond your control (race, sex, attractiveness, height, weight,etc). 

It is great that they remove people who dress inapropriatelly as deemed by the airlines and the majority of the public.. The person dressed themselves in a manner that was unacceptable to the airlines and to many passengers. They have the choice to dress or not dress that way. The airlines has the right to refuse them service based on their attire. Perhaps Greyhound has a more liberal dress code or else they can rent a car and drive themselves to their destination. Or even easier they can simply pull their pants up and fly to where they want to go.

Several years ago I was with the family at 6 flags magic mountain and a group of guys was in line in front of me with their pants sagging and underwear showing. I told them to pull their pants up because my family didn't come to a theme park to see their drawers. One of them said it was the style. I said pull up your pants right now, I am not going to ask you again. I got dirty looks from the teenagers and embarassed looks from my kids, but several people in line applauded as they pulled up their pants. 

If I had seen you at Magic mountain or Coney Island with your underwear showing in front of my family I would have told you to pull up your pants too. We will have to forever disagree on this one.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 20, 2011)

Entitlement mentality. Everyone should have a "right" to say, do, act, dress, fill in the blank, anywhwere, anytime. The problem with this type of thinking is that it violates the premise of societal norms, and what the majority believe is conduct that is acceptable to most. Where do you draw the line? Or should there simply be no line, or limits to what people can do, say, or act like in a civilized society? I can't help but smell a degree of hypocrisy in this thinking, because my experience has been, its fine until it affects _that_ person. Should a person be able to board a flight wearing a profane t shirt? Why? How about one that says *I'm going to CUT the person next to me* and then they take the seat next to you, or your child. You wouldn't have any problem with that either, right?


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Entitlement mentality. Everyone should have a "right" to say, do, act, dress, fill in the blank, anywhwere, anytime. The problem with this type of thinking is that it violates the premise of societal norms, and what the majority believe is conduct that is acceptable to most. Where do you draw the line? Or should there simply be no line, or limits to what people can do, say, or act like in a civilized society? I can't help but smell a degree of hypocrisy in this thinking, because my experience has been, its fine until it affects that person. Should a person be able to board a flight wearing a profane t shirt? Why? How about one that says *I'm going to CUT the person next to me" And then they take the.seat next to you. You wouldn't have any problem with that either, right?



I don't have a problem with that...of course there are certain situations where certain outfits are inappropriate...at work you dress like a professional...if your not out working...you should absolutly be able to express yourself with your clothing


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I don't have a problem with that...of course there are certain situations where certain outfits are inappropriate...at work you dress like a professional...if your not out working...you should absolutly be able to express yourself with your clothing



Really? So a passenger on a flight should be allowed to express themselves wearing a t shirt that says *I'm a terrorist, and this flight is DOOMED* 

Outside of "work", anything goes? Really?

That's ridiculous.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Really? So a passenger on a flight should be allowed to express themselves wearing a t shirt that says *I'm a terrorist, and this flight is DOOMED*
> 
> Outside of "work", anything goes? Really?
> 
> That's ridiculous.



A shirt is a shirt...if the title on a book cover says "This is a TV" does that make it so??  Not so much anything goes...we have decency laws that make alot of sense in america, some are a bit extreme but most of the time they're fairly good...obviously you shouldn't be walking around a school yard in the buff but does it really matter what a shirt says as long as it covers the no-no parts?

Meh, sometimes i'm too liberal?


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> A shirt is a shirt...if the title on a book cover says "This is a TV" does that make it so??  Not so much anything goes...we have decency laws that make alot of sense in america, some are a bit extreme...obviously you shouldn't be walking around a school yard in the buff but *does it really matter what a shirt says as long as it covers the no-no parts?*Meh, sometimes i'm too liberal?



Simple answer. Yes. And I'd be willing to bet you would agree if/ when it affects _you_.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Simple answer. Yes. And I'd be willing to bet you would agree if/ when it affects _you_.



I'm still trying to figure out how something printed on a shirt could actually affect me...


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2011)

Recently on TUG, someone registered a user name that was something like, "I stalk little girls."  Needles to say, the name was banned.

Ride - If you are boarding a plane and a guy wearing a T-shirt that says "I stalk little girls," with a picture of J.C. Dugard on it, is going to sit next to YOUR little girl, are you OK with it?  I mean - it's "just" a T-shirt....


----------



## pjrose (Jun 20, 2011)

Patri said:


> *I doubt anyone is offended by this except you. Call back in 20 or 30 years when you are one of them.*
> . . .



:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: 

Note that my 92 year old father in law and 75 year old mother in law are ALWAYS well dressed; he usually in a suit and tie, she in a dress or suit and low heels.  At their most casual, for gardening, they might be wearing khakis and polo shirts with sneakers and socks.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jun 20, 2011)

Driving down the road today, I noticed a guy with hair half-way down his back and the bald spot on the top of his head. He also had a full beard about 6 inches long.  How gross looking to me! 

Rule should be big bald spot mandates short hair (above ears) and no facial hair. Then I would never have offended or noticed his poor taste in attire and his pastie white bald spot.


----------



## Karen G (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> This entire thread is about the rediculousness behind someone being judged and taken off of a plane because some flight attendent didn't like the way they looked or dressed.


The way he looked was not what got him in trouble. He could have easily corrected the situation. When confronted by the flight crew he failed to obey their instructions, and that's against the law. 

The safety of flight is the primary objective of the crew. If there are unruly, non-compliant passengers who will not follow instructions, that could become a real problem in the event of an emergency. Seemingly unimportant issues can escalate into big issues, as was the case for this young man.

The captain is in charge of the flight and the people onboard. If there's a problem passenger, that person will most likely be removed so that the plane can continue safely to the destination without distractions.  When my husband was an airline captain he had a few instances where police were called and/or unruly passengers were removed. He refused to fly the plane with passengers like that onboard, and the majority of the rest of the passengers and all of the crew members appreciated that.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

Karen G said:


> The way he looked was not what got him in trouble. He could have easily corrected the situation. When confronted by the flight crew he failed to obey their instructions, and that's against the law.
> 
> The safety of flight is the primary objective of the crew. If there are unruly, non-compliant passengers who will not follow instructions, that could become a real problem in the event of an emergency. Seemingly unimportant issues can escalate into big issues, as was the case for this young man.
> 
> The captain is in charge of the flight and the people onboard. If there's a problem passenger, that person will most likely be removed so that the plane can continue safely to the destination without distractions.  When my husband was an airline captain he had a few instances where police were called and/or unruly passengers were removed. He refused to fly the plane with passengers like that onboard, and the majority of the rest of the passengers and all of the crew members appreciated that.



I'm sorry but if the request is unreasonable, i'm not going to comply...i understand when the safety of the crew and passengers is an issue, he should definatly get the boot if not listening or complying then....But because his pants were too low??  Thats just unreasonable and rediculous...there is no doubt it was 100% because of the way he looked...they saw a big tough looking guy(college football player) with baggy clothes on and made assumptions about him and started attacking him and his choice in clothing...some flight attendant decided to give him a hard time because of it....he was nothing but polite and they still threw him off the flight....God help him if he was wearing an islamic religious outfit...he would have been 'randomly checked' a dozen times before he got on

You have no idea how many times i've seen girls on planes wearing just A-shirts undershirts and those little shorts with 'juicy' printed on the back...yet nothing is said to them...those shorts are shorter then any PJ pants or shorts he was wearing under his jeans....he was singled out specificly because of how he looked


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I'm sorry but if the request is unreasonable, i'm not going to comply..



SERIOUSLY?  You would take it to the point of being arrested to defend your right to sag?  What if you daughter was with you?



> You have no idea how many times i've seen girls on planes wearing just A-shirts undershirts and those little shorts with 'juicy' printed on the back...yet nothing is said to them...those shorts are shorter then any PJ pants or shorts he was wearing under his jeans....he was singled out specificly because of how he looked



Not true - a young San Diego woman was removed from a South West flight for being attired that way.  The really ironic thing was that she was a Hooters waitress and she was flying to AZ for a visit with her breast implants Dr.!  Reports said that her skirt was so short that when she sat down it did not cover things it should cover.  In pictures, her skirt appeared to be about 8 in. long from waist band to hem.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Not true - a young San Diego woman was removed from a South West flight for being attired that way. The really ironic thing was that she was a Hooters waitress and she was flying to AZ for a visit with her breast implants Dr.!



I didn't know about the girl from hooters...that changes alot of what i've said in this thread  



DeniseM said:


> SERIOUSLY? You would take it to the point of being arrested to defend your right to sag? What if you daughter was with you?



I hope to raise my daughter to be as free thinking and aware of her rights as my parents raised me to be...Authority only has the rights they are limited to by law...If they overstep it is everyones job to make sure they know they are going beyond what they are legally able to do and to refuse to comply to unreasonable and illegal demands by them...if we make assumptions that any professional is above us simply because they hold a badge or a MD(even with my mother being in the medical field..i don't trust doctors to know more then i do)...we are accepting that that some people have less worth then others...i was always taught that Everyone is equal and deserves equal respect


----------



## geoand (Jun 20, 2011)

Ride,

In an airplane, I do believe you would comply.  Your intelligence would force you to realize there are better ways to handle this situation than refusing to comply.

As one liberal (way older than you by the way) to another, there are so many better ways to protest inappropriate use of power.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

geoand said:


> Ride,
> 
> In an airplane, I do believe you would comply.  Your intelligence would force you to realize there are better ways to handle this situation than refusing to comply.
> 
> As one liberal (way older than you by the way) to another, there are so many better ways to protest inappropriate use of power.



You know your right...you never really know what you're going to do in that type situation till it happens to you...It probly would have been best for him to just pull um up and file a report with that Stewardess' manager or someone in management with the airline after the flight was over...From what i saw of the video(his broken english) and what i know of college football players....he may not be as smart as you or I


----------



## Karen G (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> they saw a big tough looking guy(college football player) with baggy clothes on and made assumptions about him and started attacking him and his choice in clothing


You are criticizing the flight crew and judging them because you think you can read their mind and you think you know what motivates their actions.

Again, it's all a matter of flight safety. A crew member has to be very observant and very wary of anything that appears out of the ordinary. What if the guy with the baggy pants is concealing something like an explosive device or what if he's mentally unbalanced and might cause trouble once the plane is in the air?  There are a lot of "what-ifs" to consider and the crew has to make quick decisions all the time for the safety of everyone on the plane.

If the young man can't follow the simple request such as "pull up your pants," how do you know he would follow any other requests that might have to be made throughout the flight.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 20, 2011)

Ride, perhaps the hole you're digging yourself into would become a bit less deep if you defended your own argument. Would you or wouldn't you mind a stranger to sit next to your young daughter if they were wearing the "I'llm a child molester " shirt?

"rediculous" indeed.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Ride, perhaps the hole you're digging yourself into would become a bit less deep if you defended your own argument. Would you or wouldn't you mind a stranger to sit next to your young daughter if they were wearing the "I'llm a child molester " shirt?
> 
> "rediculous" indeed.



i love my spelling of rediculous! I think you'll find it fits my posting style very well once you get to know me

Now onto your question...I don't really believe that an Actual Child molester would wear a shirt that said 'i'm a child molester' no more then i believe everyone wearing a cross believes god created the world in seven days....But what it would make me do is keep a better eye on that person(in both cases)...


Now do i believe that we should make it illegal to wear shirts like that?  Absolutely not! The freedom of expression and freedom of speech aren't just limited to please and thank you...they allow people to express their thoughts and beliefs even if those beliefs are controversial to some....I'm against school uniforms also...it restricts a childs ability to express themselves and learn to be an individual...some of the greatest things a child can learn in school isn't what is taught in the outdated misinformed textbooks, but in the social interactions that come because of who they are and how they dress

I think some of the suggestions here could very well end with a National Dress Code, Fashion Police Rooming the streets making sure your shirt is ironed and socks are regulation length...i don't want to live in a nation where there is no individuality and its not worth risking that freedom because i see a person dressed in a way i don't like


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2011)

Ride - I hope your ex-wife doesn't read TUG.  Some of the comments you have made about choices you would make when you daughter is in your custody could impact your visitation rights.  Seriously, I have a family law attorney speak to my class every year and she routinely prints out parent's posts from the internet to bring before the judge in visitation/custody hearings as documentation of poor judgment or other parental shortcomings.  

I don't think you really mean it, but if you are away from home with your daughter on vacation, and you get arrested on the plane, what do you think would happen to your daughter?  I can tell you - Social Services would take her into custody until her mother could get there.  Would you REALLY put your little girl through that to prove a point?  

I certainly HOPE that your daughter's well-being comes *before* anything else!


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> i love my spelling of rediculous! I think you'll find it fits my posting style very well once you get to know me
> 
> Now onto your question...I don't really believe that an Actual Child molester would wear a shirt that said 'i'm a child molester' no more then i believe everyone wearing a cross believes god created the world in seven days....But what it would make me do is keep a better eye on that person(in both cases)...
> 
> ...



You're free to leave, anytime.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> I don't think you really mean it, but if you are away from home with your daughter on vacation, and you get arrested on the plane, what do you think would happen to your daughter?  I can tell you - Social Services would take her into custody until her mother could get there.  Would you REALLY put your little girl through that to prove a point?
> 
> I certainly HOPE that your daughter's well-being comes *before* anything else!



Police are very hesitant to arrest people like me...while my spelling is a bit off when typing online...i'm educated, come from well off stock, well versed in what is and isn't illegal, am completely non-violent and really able to act more interested then controversal while dealing with 'authority figures'...its important to always phrase things as questions when dealing with the police and sound interested in what they are saying, never correct them but make statements like 'really? I thought it was ....?' or 'Huh, where is that posted?'


----------



## am1 (Jun 20, 2011)

Don't worry after spending 5.5 years on long island for university and living there for a few more it is safe to say that Long Islanders would be the first to disagree about something but also the first to comply with authority.  

If I remember correctly the hooters girl just had to adjust her outfit and was fine to fly.  The same day she flew again with the same outfit and had no problems.  Her attire complied with Southwest's dress code or lack of it.  

Would it have made a differences if the man was only wearing his boxers with underwear underneath?  Different circumstances changes everything.  

I would have thrown him off the plane as well as he had the ability to correct it and as far as I know did not.  

Regarding what is deemed acceptable or not is decided on the people in power which are always biased.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

am1 said:


> Regarding what is deemed acceptable or not is decided on the people in power which are always biased.



The problem as i see it...is that the consumer and the voter...are the ones in power...but they don't realize it...Because one flight attendent decided she didn't like how this consumer was dressed and looked because of it he was thrown off the plane...IF the other passengers on the plane realized that by standing up and saying something they could have stopped this injustice i'm sure they would have, no one under 35-40(the majority of America) finds saggy pants offensive, we grew up watching all our idles dressing like that...but the problem is that we are taught all through school to not question 'authority' and we are told that the 'authorities' are those with badges and/or uniforms when thats just not accurate...in fact each one of us is the authority


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Police are very hesitant to arrest people like me...while my spelling is a bit off when typing online...i'm educated, come from well off stock, well versed in what is and isn't illegal, am completely non-violent and really able to act more interested then controversal while dealing with 'authority figures'...its important to always phrase things as questions when dealing with the police and sound interested in what they are saying, never correct them but make statements like 'really? I thought it was ....?' or 'Huh, where is that posted?'



Maybe under normal circumstances - but on an airplane that all changes.  If you defy the captain, you are toast.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The problem as i see it...is that the consumer and the voter...are the ones in power...but they don't realize it...Because one flight attendent decided she didn't like how this consumer was dressed and looked because of it he was thrown off the plane..



You are carefully avoiding one point - when he was asked to pull up his pants *"he pulled them all the way down."*  So it wasn't just the way he was dressed - it was his defiant response to that request.



> IF the other passengers on the plane realized that by standing up and saying something they could have stopped this injustice i'm sure they would have



You are kidding yourself here.  Your average traveler does NOT what his business trip/vacation delayed for hours for something so silly and superficial.  And your average traveler certainly is not going to put themselves in jeopardy for a complete stranger who is delaying the flight over something really unnecessary.  If I was on his plane I would have been furious to have my trip delayed by something so stupid!

Here is what is going to happen:  His university & team has had him on the rack for several days now.  He is going to come out with a "heartfelt" admission that he used very poor judgment and apologize profusely, and promise never to do it again.  His university & team will also give him specific directions about how to dress and act in public in the future, and if he values his football career, and his scholarship, he will follow them.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> You are carefully avoiding one point - when he was asked to pull up his pants *"he pulled them all the way down."*  So it wasn't just the way he was dressed - it was his defiant response to that request.



Hehe...shh! Don't tell anyone, i was intentionally avoiding that point...What kind of an ignorant child acts like....Well nevermind, let me just say, that was about the stupidest thing he could have done in that situation...you don't intentionally push on people that are ready and able to push back harder, sometimes its better to go around...as a football player he should have understood that, but maybe he was a lineman...


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Hehe...shh! Don't tell anyone, i was intentionally avoiding that point...What kind of an ignorant child acts like....Well nevermind, let me just say, that was about the stupidest thing he could have done in that situation...you don't intentionally push on people that are ready and able to push back harder, sometimes its better to go around...as a football player he should have understood that, but maybe he was a lineman...



Ride - THERE IS HOPE FOR YOU YET!


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2011)

Couple more interesting notes in the latest news on this story:

After he as taken off the plane, Marman physically resisted arrest and was put in a prone position (on the floor) and an office was injured in the scuffle.  

He has an outstanding drug warrant for possession of marijuana in Santa Clara County.  For his college and team, that may be an even bigger issue.

I wonder if he knew about the warrant? - you'd think he'd want to keep a low profile in the Bay Area.


----------



## Mel (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The problem as i see it...is that the consumer and the voter...are the ones in power...but they don't realize it...Because one flight attendent decided she didn't like how this consumer was dressed and looked because of it he was thrown off the plane...IF the other passengers on the plane realized that by standing up and saying something they could have stopped this injustice i'm sure they would have, no one under 35-40(the majority of America) finds saggy pants offensive, we grew up watching all our idles dressing like that...but the problem is that we are taught all through school to not question 'authority' and we are told that the 'authorities' are those with badges and/or uniforms when thats just not accurate...in fact each one of us is the authority


You're working from false assumptions.  Perhaps few males in the under 35 age group find saggy pants offensive, but just ask any of the women in my neighborhood, including the high school girls, and while they might not find it offensive per se, they all think it's stupid.  You can tell which of the young men in the HS aren't dating regularly - they're the ones with the saggy pants, because the girls all tell their boyfriends to pull them up.  They don't want to be seen with them otherwise.  Females make up 51% of the population, so where are you getting your majority?  

You are right that consumers and voters do have a certain amount of power - but most of them choose not to use it.  As a voter, you have the right to elect someone else (or in rare cases of misconduct, to remove someone from office).  As a consumer you can vote with your money.  He chose to fly home on that airplane, and in doing so, he agrees to play by their rules - just as all of us exchanging through RCI agree to play the exchange game by their rules.    If he did not wish to follow the instructions of the flight crew, he had the ability to leave, and take a different flight - one on which the crew would allow him to wear what he wanted the way he wanted.

OK, you don't care about a t-shirt saying something about being a sex offender.  What of a white supremacist wearing a shirt saying all blacks should be hung, with a graphic of someone hanging from a tree and the KKK watching holding torches.  Maybe one 10% of the population would find it personally offensive, but I bet we could agree the majority of people would find it generally offensive.  As I constantly tell the girls in my Girl Scout troop, it's not about what you do, but how you do it.  Even if he was speaking politely, he was still disrespecting authority.  You have every right to choose to do so, but you then must live with the consequences.



Ridewithme38 said:


> Police are very hesitant to arrest people like me...while my spelling is a bit off when typing online...i'm educated, come from well off stock, well versed in what is and isn't illegal, am completely non-violent and really able to act more interested then controversal while dealing with 'authority figures'...its important to always phrase things as questions when dealing with the police and sound interested in what they are saying, never correct them but make statements like 'really? I thought it was ....?' or 'Huh, where is that posted?'


I don't know where you live that you would think this.  Most of our local police would take that type of behavior as elitist, and be more likely to find some reason to throw you in jail.  If you always phrase things as questions, then you are questioning their authority, and their knowledge of their job - likely to get you charged with obstruction or even resisting arrest.  You remind me of why I don't socialize with my youngest daughter's parents, and why I won't lead another kindergarten troop - not because they are so young, but because their parents are (they're under 35).  It's not just the pants, it's a general disrespect for society.  The rules aren't written for them, and certainly not for their children.


----------



## scrapngen (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Hehe...shh! Don't tell anyone, i was intentionally avoiding that point...What kind of an ignorant child acts like....Well nevermind, let me just say, that was about the stupidest thing he could have done in that situation...you don't intentionally push on people that are ready and able to push back harder, sometimes its better to go around...as a football player he should have understood that, but maybe he was a lineman...



Ride - you crack me up, and I think you just like a little controversy in riling up the "older folks" on this site. 

I think you might find that many of them were rebels in their day, just as you were. After all, every generation has their rebels. Flappers in the 20's, pin-up girls for the soldiers going to WW2, those who started smoking, girls wearing PANTS!! like Katherine Hepburn,  then the leather jackets of the 50's, mini skirts and hippy hair in the 60's. the list goes on. Going to high school in the late 70's to early 80's, we made fun of the "preppies," wore extremely short shorts and tube tops, then watched in a little shock as Madonna got her wanna-be's (which tended to be middle school girls -even tho she was older)  wearing sexy underwear as outerwear. I was one of those with blue eyeshadow, bright blush, etc. Then graduated to high heeled boots at clubs with a long shirt with a wide belt. (no skirt/shorts/but did have pantyhose on) Yet would also wear longer flouncy skirts and pony tail. 
And dated people who would have been hippies had they been born sooner. 

I still find the pants on the ground style silly and a bit offensive. It seems to me to be a bit unhygenic as well - that's what bothers me. Boxers are loose, and the junk is flopping. (excuse my directness) And kids can't even walk - just waddle as someone else said - and one hand is always used to keep them from completely fouling up their feet. I think that while you wouldn't mind seeing a cute young thing wearing her thong out, you'd object to an unattractive, or older, or less firm person dressed only in their underwear!

And ultimately, I don't want my daughters having to see people dressed this way. Or eventually dating someone who dresses this way. It's hard enough letting them wear bikini's (moderate coverage - not the itsy, bitsy ones) at the beach, as I notice them getting looks now. They are only 10 and 12.  I would not be comfortable having them sit next to a young man in his underwear - and they wouldn't like it either. And regardless of what you say here - I know you would not allow your 5 year old DD sit next to a man wearing a shirt proclaiming any proclivity to sex offenders. On a plane?? for a few hours? Yeah, right. where are his hands?? Sorry, but things change when it's your own kid.

 I try to give my girls some leeway, but certain things are not appropriate at their age, and other things will never be appropriate for them to wear. But then you get the other side... My older daughter was told that "jeggings" are considered skin tight and not appropriate in her Catholic school on "free dress" days. It never dawned on me that they'd be a problem as it's a common look for pre-teens in this area and I have no problem with how she looks in them.  She's fine with not being able to wear them to school - those are their house rules. It was posted in the handbook, we just didn't think about it. Shoot, last year we found out that our principal considered high tops to be "boots" and therefore not allowed, even though they were the right color for athletic shoes and are a sneaker, not a "boot." 
Again, it didn't seem worth it to argue the point. It hasn't hurt their ability to express themselves as individuals. They can do that outside of the classroom.   I'm sure more and more that their choices will not always be mine, but I think they have good judgement for the most part, and they know the house rules. They also understand there's a time and place for protest. An airplane is not a good place to make a stand...

Anyway, I also wouldn't be comfortable having Lady Gaga sitting next to me, my DD's or my husband in some of her outfits. It's fine, I guess, for the stage, but not for general wear. You already agree that certain clothes are inappropriate for work. For the flight attendant - that *is* her workplace. 

Anyway, thanks for entertaining reading....


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The problem as i see it...is that the consumer and the voter...are the ones in power...but they don't realize it...Because one flight attendent decided she didn't like how this consumer was dressed and looked because of it he was thrown off the plane...IF the other passengers on the plane realized that by standing up and saying something they could have stopped this injustice i'm sure they would have, *no one under 35-40(the majority of America) finds saggy pants offensive*, we grew up watching all our idles dressing like that...but the problem is that we are taught all through school to not question 'authority' and we are told that the 'authorities' are those with badges and/or uniforms when thats just not accurate...in fact each one of us is the authority



This really cracked me up. Not where I live. My 21 y/o son & all of his friends think these people are idiots. So much for the "majority". 

Maybe it's time to put down the pipe.


----------



## geoand (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> i love my spelling of rediculous! I think you'll find it fits my posting style very well once you get to know me
> 
> Now onto your question...I don't really believe that an Actual Child molester would wear a shirt that said 'i'm a child molester' no more then i believe everyone wearing a cross believes god created the world in seven days....But what it would make me do is keep a better eye on that person(in both cases)...
> 
> ...



Ride,

Just for clarification, I am a big hulking dude who is not considered caucasion.  Wife also reminds me that I need to be aware of how many people may feel intimidated when in the same room (even in my old age).  Having a younger white wife sometimes even makes it worse.

Now, I don't know how old your child is.  My hunch is that she is old enough to read.  I also know that if that guy with the T-shirt and child molester on it sits next to you and daughter or walks down the aisle of the plane towards you, you are going to make sure that your daughter is not going to feel intimidated with that guy's shirt.  Have a hunch you would tell the ignoramus a few choice words to protect your child and her feelings.

I also know that you truly love being the devil's advocate.  I understand that it takes one to know one.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 20, 2011)

geoand said:


> Ride,Now, I don't know how old your child is.  My hunch is that she is old enough to read.



She's 5(six in november), so she's just starting to put letters together into words...i've got to admit, the thought of her asking me 'daddy, what does m-o-l-e-s-t-e-r spell?' creeps me out a bit




> I also know that you truly love being the devil's advocate.  I understand that it takes one to know one.



i've definatly been having alot more fun in this thread then i should


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


>



You know what I find most funny about this picture?  This is a group of people who would stage a huge protest if their school required uniforms.  They are about freedom of self expression, right?

So, how come they all are dressed THE SAME??????:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> A shirt is a shirt...if the title on a book cover says "This is a TV" does that make it so??  Not so much anything goes...we have decency laws that make alot of sense in america, some are a bit extreme but most of the time they're fairly good...obviously you shouldn't be walking around a school yard in the buff but does it really matter what a shirt says as long as it covers the no-no parts?
> 
> Meh, sometimes i'm too liberal?



This is one of the definitions of liberal:

"The term "social liberalism" is often used interchangeably with "modern liberalism".[9] The Liberal International is the main international organisation of liberal parties, which include, among other liberal variants, social liberal parties. It affirms the following principles: human rights, free and fair elections and multiparty democracy, social justice, tolerance, social market economy, free trade, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity.[10]

From my liberal viewpoint, you are free to have your opinion and free to express your opinion. I am free to tell you I believe that you are wrong. Tombo is free to tell you to pull up your pants. The airline is free to tell you that you aren't allowed on their airplane unless your pants are pulled up. The other passengers on the plane are free to express their opinion including being either tolerant of your exposed underwear or offended by your exposed underwear. And if you disagree, you are free to express your disagreement by leaving.

No one told the man that he could not fly. He was free to fly as long as he pulled up his pants. 

The fact is that there are rules. One of the rules is that pilots of airplanes, like captains of ships, are the final arbiters of what will or will not happen on their plane. So, the pilot is free to have the offender removed.

elaine


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 20, 2011)

The one thing I cannot get out of my mind, and I know others are thinking it as well, but back in the day, not long ago, flying was a dressy occasion, all about how NICE we could look.  We wore dresses, heels, and had our hair coiffed... 

I just had a phone conversation with Brucecz yesterday, and we talked about the change in our attitudes about flying, and how we think $400 for a flight to Orlando from Denver is too much (I was griping about it), and he said, "Hey, that same flight cost $300 in 1968 or so."  So true, and look how the dollar has gone up.  Airfare is cheap.  You could buy a Ford Mustage for $3K back in 1968, and now what would you pay?  

Now we wear pajama pants with underwear showing, because flying is just what you do to get from point A and point B.  Nothing special about it for most of us.  No more road trips, when people can avoid it.

I am not liberal, but I respect your right to say anything you want on this subject, Ride.  I am getting a kick out of the thread.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> i've definatly been having alot more fun in this thread then i should



You have actually done a fairly good job of debating the issues, and avoiding "trollish" behavior in this thread.    

When you debate the issues logically, people will respond in kind, and it's a lot more fun than being called a troll and being kicked to the curb.


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 20, 2011)

Freedom of expression has been bantered about on this thread.  Some feel more strongly about it than others (I won't go any deeper than that).

But here's the thing about freedom of expression.  In the 60's, we had a bunch of teenagers rebelling against their parents, the establishment, the "man".  They were all "free thinkers", etc, you get the picture.  Yet, if you look at pictures from the 60's, what do you see?  Everyone, all these people fighting for freedom of expression, all dressed the same, acting the same, listening to the same music, etc.  

Fast forward to the 90's when I went to college.  There was the grunge look.  Another "rebellious" moment.  And there day after day on my college campus I saw thousands of kids milling about, all dressed exactly the same.  

How expressive is it when you look just like everyone else you hang with??


----------



## Tia (Jun 20, 2011)

Was it mentioned anywhere another possibility for the guy not complying with the simple request to pull up his pants  is being an athlete maybe he feels he has special privileges? :ignore:


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 20, 2011)

I believe the "freedom of expression" thing is just a simple cry of "hey, everyone, LOOK AT ME!!" 

Remember Goths? How about people with multiple face piercings?

*Look at me!!!*

There's something missing in their lives. Attention, and likely, unfortunately, love.


----------



## geoand (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> She's 5(six in november), so she's just starting to put letters together into words...i've got to admit, the thought of her asking me 'daddy, what does m-o-l-e-s-t-e-r spell?' creeps me out a bit
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just to add another thought about you.  My strong hunch is that if you were in front of the plane or had seen the guy with the T shirt about being a molester before boarding, you would have explained to the ignoramus that the T shirt is going on board.  Not only for your child, but for the other children that would be on the plane.

Isn't it a wonderful thing to be able to debate these issues and have your own words and expressions to be used to against your arguments?  Most importantly, isn't it great to be able to discuss our thoughts without anyone's thoughts or expression being accused as "silly?"


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jun 20, 2011)

Ride has a new drama developing in his life. His new timeshare deed was perhaps recorded listing the wrong resort (well, at least he did think he brought that resort).


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2011)

Did you meant to post:



> you would have explained to the ignoramus that the T shirt is *[not]* going on board.


----------



## geoand (Jun 20, 2011)

Thanks Denise, I think and speak faster than I type.


----------



## Talent312 (Jun 20, 2011)

What the kid failed to understand is that, in our society, those who run the show pretty much own your butt and, whatever you may think about it, you either play by their rules or you'll be watching from the sidelines.

If the kid was whitewater rafting and repeatedly failed to follow the leader's instructions, he'd be watching from the shoreline pretty darn quick... as I understand happened to some drunken sailors on the Gauley.


----------



## 6scoops (Jun 20, 2011)

*"Looking like a fool with your pants on the ground"*

Just found this thread,  so a little late but:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoAMWnnz98w

This guy says it all.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 20, 2011)

Karen G said:


> If the young man can't follow the simple request such as "pull up your pants," how do you know he would follow any other requests that might have to be made throughout the flight.


That's exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 20, 2011)

rickandcindy23 said:


> The one thing I cannot get out of my mind, and I know others are thinking it as well, but back in the day, not long ago, flying was a dressy occasion, all about how NICE we could look.  We wore dresses, heels, and had our hair coiffed...


Yup, that's what I was thinking, too.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The problem as i see it...is that the consumer and the voter...are the ones in power...but they don't realize it...Because one flight attendent decided she didn't like how this consumer was dressed and looked because of it he was thrown off the plane...*IF the other passengers on the plane realized that by standing up and saying something they could have stopped this injustice i'm sure they would have*, ....


We do realize we have power--I exercise mine daily with the almighty dollar.  And I do think the other passengers on that plane realized they were saying something.  They were speaking very loudly with their silence that they _agreed_ with the flight attendant.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 20, 2011)

6scoops said:


> Just found this thread,  so a little late but:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoAMWnnz98w
> 
> This guy says it all.



My kids talked about this for days. I had never seen it before. Thanks for posting!

elaine


----------



## l2trade (Jun 21, 2011)

Not the way I would dress, but this seems like a major incident just for wearing baggy pants.  Same too with the Hooter girl incident.  Safety wise, I'd rather be sitting between baggy underwear pants and Hooter girl, than between trench coat and hidden face...

I've seen dozens of police storm an airplane after landing and escort away an elderly couple who complained when the flight attendants ran out of salads for sale before they reached them...

IMHO, the bigger story here is that flying sucks nowadays!  A small incident can quickly escalate and spiral out of control and common sense seems lost in fear & panic.  I've taken to driving anything less than 800 miles.  And, when flying, I shut up and do as I'm told.  This guy should have done the same.  Afterwards, he could protest and complain outside the airport and I would applaud him for doing so.  There is blame in this story to go around against us airways overreacting, if only he pulled up his pants and exited the plane first...


----------



## pjrose (Jun 21, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> Yup, that's what I was thinking, too.



Me too.  I remember wearing a grey suit and white gloves on my first flight when I was about 10 or so.


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 21, 2011)

I agree that the steward(esses) can be a little quick with the option to kick someone off the plane.

We were flying to Orlando, 18 month old and 7 year old in tow.  (SW Air to be exact).  I was back in the plane, struggling with the two kids while trying to put a car seat in (lots of fun in a packed plane with everyone trying to stow their luggage).  No one offers to help you with this.  DH was having similar issues trying to fold up the stroller in that tiny hallway while 50 people pushed past him. The stewardesses saw him there, and just stood and watched.  When he complained that no one provided him any assistance the stewardess kicked him off the plane.  I couldn't believe it!  We had driven 90 minutes to catch a flight to disney and were kicked off!  Or better yet, HE was kicked off.  We could stay, like that was going to happen.  I stood there shaking and in tears.  How on earth do you kick off some little kid's daddy on their way to Disney, because he showed frustration over a stroller?

He went up to the stewardess and captain and calmly explained to them his disability, showed them all the documentation he had to carry to back it up, (he cannot go thru metal detectors because of two implanted devices and has to carry cards to show this) and was just questioning why he couldn't get any help.  They said it was because he wasn't flagged as disabled.  Ok fine.  Atleast they let him stay on the plane. 

So while I think it is a good idea that stewardesses can exercise their right to kick off someone because they deem them to be a safety threat, I don't think it's meant to use just because you (the stewardess) had a bad day.

The part about him not being flagged as disabled---I used to work in hotels.   Similar to airlines, this is a hospitality industry.  I wouldn't dare walk past a guest that was struggling with something and not offer assistance, whether that guest was in a wheelchair, or was 200 lbs of solid muscle.   That's the problem.  The airlines don't see themselves as a hospitality industry.  I think they see themselves as "we are flying a plane.  we are nice enough to let you buy a ticket and ride it.  now sit down and shut up."


----------



## tombo (Jun 21, 2011)

When dealing with a flght crew on a plane or when dealing with the police you argue or complain at your own risk. 

If a policeman tells you that you were speeding, rolled through a stop sign, etc you can either talk to them nicelly saying yes sir and no sir and accept your ticket or argue with them and get rude risking additional charges. I have seen people turn a simple traffic stop into an arrest because they had to show their butt (not literally like the guy on the plane). If you yell at them, call them names, or simply get belligerent you can be arrested. If you simply say I didn' think I was speeding could you give me a break you might get one. If you receive a ticket you feel you shouldn't have gotten, the place to argue yoiur case is in court, not on the side of the road.

Same thing on a plane. I was first class 2 years ago and the pilot came out to stretch his legs and use the restroom. When they leave the cockpit the stewardesses block the aisle and rest room with the meal cart to prevent anyone rushing the cockpit. The pilot flirted with a stewardess for 45 minutes while our first class rest room was blocked putting us to use the already crowded coach rest room. We also got zero drink or food service while the pilot had his social hour. I got madder and madder and was going to say something loud and rude. My wife said you know that if you get loud that they will have the police meet you at the gate and arrest you. I don't feel like waiting on luggage and then waiting to bail you out of jail. I shut up. When the pilot went back to the cabin the stewardess came by and I wrote down her name from her name tag and aske the name of the romeo pilot. She asked why I wanted it. I said as soon as I get home I am writing a complaint to the airline because for almost an hour of our 4 hour flight I did not get any first class drink, food, or rest room access that I paid extra for when I purchased my tickets because the pilot was flirting with you. She said he was not out that long I said I have the times documented and I will not discuss it with you, I will take it up with the airline after I return home. Had I raised holy hell like I wanted to I would have been met at the gate by security ad arrested. I had the option to do it but it would have been a stupid thing to do with an inevitable bad outcome. I instead (thanks to my wife) handled it correctly and got an apology from the airline and several 1000 flyer miles added to my account.

When getting mad and losing your cool on an airline, with an officer of the law, or in court you know that you are possibly making your situation much worse. If it is worth a nght in jail or being placed on a no fly list, go ahead and argue and complain on principle. Just make sure that as you sit in jail and/or miss your flight that your indignation and outrage are worth the consequences.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jun 21, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> ...He went up to the stewardess and captain and calmly explained to them his disability, showed them all the documentation he had to carry to back it up, (he cannot go thru metal detectors because of two implanted devices and has to carry cards to show this) and was just questioning why he couldn't get any help.  They said it was because he wasn't flagged as disabled.  Ok fine.  Atleast they let him stay on the plane.
> 
> So while I think it is a good idea that stewardesses can exercise their right to kick off someone because they deem them to be a safety threat, I don't think it's meant to use just because you (the stewardess) had a bad day.
> 
> ..  I wouldn't dare walk past a guest that was struggling with something and not offer assistance, whether that guest was in a wheelchair, or was 200 lbs of solid muscle. ..



Laura,
I am considered a senior citizen by many groups. I am tall (5'9") and look 40ish yo, due to genes, good skin, dark hair and alert eyes. I refuse to help any passenger who is trying to get a bag into the overhead - SWA has free baggage checking and the amount of luggage carried onto these planes is stupid. People want to run off the planes and get home without the 15 minutes wait for their luggage.  SWA has a policy for ALL flight attendants to NOT help with any lifting of bags into the overheads - because of injuries! The exception is the DISABLE passengers. 

I sit in the back of the plane and regularly see 20-30 yos who CAN NOT lift their own bag (many are way over 50lbs bags). They stand there and beg for help. It is amazing HOW many passengers do not help, because they can't get hurt due to no paid time off, limited medical coverage or they checked their under 50lbs bags like that person should have. One seatmate after takeoff told me about his friend who tore his rotator cluff by "helping" someone who didn't even say thanks with their bag. No, SWA didn't pay anything as he did it to help this individual, not under a request by a SWA employee. And if a bag does not get into the overhead, the flight attendant wheels it to the front hatch, to be gate checked by someone who is covered, trained and insured to handle luggage.

I am sorry you almost had your trip ruined. But almost all SWA flights to MCO are packed with other parents, just like you, with multiple small kids. 

My sister when she travelled with 3 kids, she either invited a third adult or teenager to help her during the trip. It was just part of the cost in her plan to go on vacation.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 21, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> I agree that the steward(esses) can be a little quick with the option to kick someone off the plane.
> 
> We were flying to Orlando, 18 month old and 7 year old in tow.  (SW Air to be exact).  I was back in the plane, struggling with the two kids while trying to put a car seat in (lots of fun in a packed plane with everyone trying to stow their luggage).  No one offers to help you with this.  DH was having similar issues trying to fold up the stroller in that tiny hallway while 50 people pushed past him. The stewardesses saw him there, and just stood and watched.  *When he complained that no one provided him any assistance the stewardess kicked him off the plane.*  I couldn't believe it!  We had driven 90 minutes to catch a flight to disney and were kicked off!  Or better yet, HE was kicked off.  We could stay, like that was going to happen.  I stood there shaking and in tears.  How on earth do you kick off some little kid's daddy on their way to Disney, because he showed frustration over a stroller?
> 
> ...



You're asking everyone on this forum to believe that a flight attendant required a passenger to leave the aircraft for complaining they weren't getting help. And there will be those that believe this. I, however, am not one of them, and I find it insulting to do so. As a frequent flyer for more years than I care to admit, logging literally millions of air miles, I've seen a lot of behavior on an aircraft. I do NOT believe this story, and as everyone knows, there are 3 sides to every story. There's a pretty big slice of information missing in this one.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 21, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> ...
> My sister when she travelled with 3 kids, she either invited a third adult or teenager to help her during the trip. It was just part of the cost in her plan to go on vacation.


Going off on a tangent here but your post reminded me of the time we invited our children's babysitter to go with us to Disneyland.  We drove.  She entertained our children for the long car ride there and back.  At the park, we divided our three children with the three adults (well, babysitter was a responsible teen).  Each child got to ride what he or she wanted to ride without aruging about having to do what their siblings wanted to do.  We'd meet up at a specified time for meals, switch kids and go off again for a couple of hours.  At the end of each day, we gave the babysitter some free time to shop or do whatever she wanted.

DH and I still talk about how that was the smartest Disney vacation we had with smaller children.


----------



## Patri (Jun 21, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> I refuse to help any passenger who is trying to get a bag into the overhead.



That's a little harsh. Some people are very short, and if the carry-on is their only luggage, what's the problem? Some people are elderly, and if being able to walk off the plane directly to their transportation with one piece of luggage makes their lives easier, why not assist them? You don't know everyone's story.
I will help unless it is truly obvious the baggage is overweight or oversized and the person is trying to skirt the rules. A kindness usually gets passed on by the recipient.


----------



## Elan (Jun 21, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> You're asking everyone on this forum to believe that a flight attendant required a passenger to leave the aircraft for complaining they weren't getting help. And there will be those that believe this. I, however, am not one of them, and I find it insulting to do so. As a frequent flyer for more years than I care to admit, logging literally millions of air miles, I've seen a lot of behavior on an aircraft. I do NOT believe this story, and as everyone knows, there are 3 sides to every story. There's a pretty big slice of information missing in this one.



  I've seen enough snarky, bitchy flight attendants to believe that Laura's story could easily be real.  And I don't fly that often.  

  While I agree with Tombo that you make a scene at your own risk, I also consider the job of flight attendant as one where you're suposed to keep a smile on your face and be as helpful and pleasant as possible at all times.  They are the ambassadors of the airlines -- God knows they do little else these days.   I already know how to fasten my seat belt and find the exit aisle, thank you.   

  I've seen numerous flight attendants that should be canned, and probably would be if the CEO of the airline got to witness their snotty behavior.


----------



## l2trade (Jun 21, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> You're asking everyone on this forum to believe that a flight attendant required a passenger to leave the aircraft for complaining they weren't getting help. And there will be those that believe this. I, however, am not one of them, and I find it insulting to do so. As a frequent flyer for more years than I care to admit, logging literally millions of air miles, I've seen a lot of behavior on an aircraft. I do NOT believe this story, and as everyone knows, there are 3 sides to every story. There's a pretty big slice of information missing in this one.



I believe it.  It passes the plausibility test.  I've flown a fraction of the miles you claim to have flown, and witnessed first hand how quickly some stuff can escalate.  There is little to no counterbalance remaining to prevent a lone flight attendant (or especially the 'junk grabbing' TSA agent, or even the post flight baggage claim rep) exercising their absolute authority towards the smallest of infractions.  While I expect most employees are good employees, and most passengers are on their best of all keep-their-mouth-shut-grin-and-bear-it behaviors, enough people fly everyday so that these overreacting incidents happen all the time.  Over the past few years, the pendulum has swung too far against the basic rights and dignity of law abiding passengers.  The hospitality and enjoyment in flying is nothing of what it once was.  Terror fears and bottom lines have conspired to strip away the frills.


----------



## l2trade (Jun 21, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> ...People want to run off the planes and get home without the 15 minutes wait for their luggage...



Have you thought about? -

1. People don't want to pay extra for a checked bag.
2. People don't want their checked bag damaged, mishandled or lost in transit.
3. People know the airlines have put enough bureaucracy and obstacles in place to minimize and eliminate reasonable claims for damage.  

I've experienced firsthand, ridiculous checked bag damage with SWA - bag and contents totally water soaked and destroyed - and they put enough obstacles, complete exclusions to the most expensive items damaged and hassles to document my claim, where it wasn't worth my time and aggravation, so I finally gave up and accepted my loss.  I estimate they did about $250 in damages.  Years back, if this had happened, a baggage claim agent would look at the damage and make a reasonable offer right then and there to correct it.  No more.  Now, I check only cheap clothes and toiletries, stuff I can afford to lose and a plan of what to do in the event that it happens on the way to my destination.  I pack as light as possible too!


----------



## Elan (Jun 21, 2011)

l2trade said:


> I believe it.  It passes the plausibility test.  I've flown a fraction of the miles you claim to have flown, and witnessed first hand how quickly some stuff can escalate.  There is little to no counterbalance remaining to prevent a lone flight attendant (or especially the 'junk grabbing' TSA agent, or even the post flight baggage claim rep) exercising their absolute authority towards the smallest of infractions.  While I expect most employees are good employees, and most passengers are on their best of all keep-their-mouth-shut-grin-and-bear-it behaviors, enough people fly everyday so that these overreacting incidents happen all the time.  Over the past few years, *the pendulum has swung too far against the basic rights and dignity of law abiding passengers.  The hospitality and enjoyment in flying is nothing of what it once was.  Terror fears and bottom lines have conspired to strip away the frills*.



  Couldn't agree more.  While there are undoubtedly many airline passengers who need to be treated harshly, there are also numerous employees who abuse the "power" they've been given, especially post 9/11.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 21, 2011)

Sure, a passenger struggling with their carry on asks for help from the flight attendant, and instead the flight attendant removes the passenger from the aircraft. Uh huh. Sounds perfectly reasonable. 

Except it doesn't to me. The backlash from other passengers would have exacerbated the problem, or is that also difficult to believe?


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Sure, a passenger struggling with their carry on asks for help from the flight attendant, and instead the flight attendant removes the passenger from the aircraft. Uh huh. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
> 
> Except it doesn't to me. The backlash from other passengers would have exacerbated the problem, or is that also difficult to believe?



People don't really step up like that anymore...Everyone has been programmed to sort of 'sit down and shut up' they've been taught that if they try to fight the system they can't win, people just don't believe they matter or can make a difference anymore

This country has swung full circle from the time when people knew their neighbors and stopped to let old women walk across the street, now we check websites for child molesters and don't let our kids walk down the block to the park alone and speed up so we can get through the intersection before the old lady gets there...It's gotten to the point women are suprised when i hold the door for them


----------



## tombo (Jun 21, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> This country has swung full circle from the time when people knew their neighbors and stopped to let old women walk across the street, now we check websites for child molesters and don't let our kids walk down the block to the park alone and speed up so we can get through the intersection before the old lady gets there...It's gotten to the point women are suprised when i hold the door for them



And it has gotten to the point where some feel that they can play their music loud, use profanity in public, and can sag their pants showing their underwear because they want to no matter how many it offends.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 21, 2011)

tombo said:


> And it has gotten to the point where some feel that they can play their music loud, use profanity in public, and can sag their pants showing their underwear because they want to no matter how many it offends.



:rofl: 

Or wear socks with Sandals, drive really slow and use phrases like 'you know in my day' also no matter how many people it offends


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 21, 2011)

> This country has swung full circle from the time when people knew their neighbors and stopped to let old women walk across the street, now we check websites for child molesters living near us and speed up so we can get through the intersection before the old lady gets there


This is sad but true.  

My mother-in-law flew to Kauai by herself this last trip.  We had FF seats on USAirways and booked months before she decided to go, and she booked on American Airlines with Rick's brother's FF miles.  She is 83 and looks really tiny and frail.  She gets lots of help from people but will not take the help, and this time she had seat mates, who not only insisted on raising her small carryon bag, but they also made sure she got to her connecting flight, which ironically was their flight.  (They also shared their snacks with her.) She sat next to them again, which is amazing for assigned seating.  

And coincidentally, we went to the welcome breakfast the next morning at our beloved Shearwater on the North Shore, very small resort for Kauai, and there they were, the same two guys, sitting at breakfast as we entered.  

I wish her return flight was not good.  It just didn't go well at all.  She had a difficult time getting help with her bag, she almost missed her connection, we think she fell asleep (it was an all nighter from Kauai to LAX).  She was treated poorly, when she went to board the plane and the attendant wasn't there to get her ticket.  The woman was rude and told her not to get on the plane without giving her ticket.  She arrived back and couldn't find her bag.  She was a wreck.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 21, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> :rofl:
> 
> Or wear socks with Sandals, drive really slow and use phrases like 'you know in my day' also no matter how many people it offends



You will do it too. You think you won't, but you will find yourself doing the same.  Life is changing, and it won't be long before you say something like, "Back in the day, I had to use a pencil to take a test," or, "I had to walk to the mailbox in the snow to get the mail," and there were actually people who wore uniforms and delivered mail to every home," or, "I used to get a newspaper thrown on my driveway every single day."  And your kids will think, or say out loud, "So?" 

They will disrespect your history.  That's what you will think.  You will say, "That was really disrespectful, when I was trying to relate to you what life used to be like."  

I read the Little House books to my kids, when they were small, and they were amazed at how different life was back then.  Horses for transportation, trains just coming through the smaller towns, and the telegraph was the only way to get news quickly from relatives far away. 

We had telephones growing up, but not everyone had one.  Calling long distance was expensive.  We had cars, and we drove only to Nebraska for vacation.  Planes were so expensive, only the rich could fly.  

And now life is so different for our kids.  There are now computers in every home, and video phones are old hat, with Skype available.  And flying is cheap and widely available, lots of options, many airlines.  

Life will be different for your kids, and they won't like it when you point it out.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 21, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> People don't really step up like that anymore...Everyone has been programmed to sort of 'sit down and shut up' they've been taught that if they try to fight the system they can't win, people just don't believe they matter or can make a difference anymore


It's been my experience that people just don't care about anything that doesn't impact them immediately.  They aren't "programmed" to think they can't make a difference any more than people were generations ago.  If anything, as you have pointed out time and time again, they defy authority just for the sake of defying authority.  

Nope, people are too immersed in self to pay any attention to what goes on around them.  Our television and movie entertainment is often centered on rude and tasteless jokes.  

It isn't that people don't care.  It's that they only care about themselves.  (And seem to think everybody else should care about them, too.)


----------



## tombo (Jun 21, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> It isn't that people don't care.  It's that they only care about themselves.  (And seem to think everybody else should care about them, too.)



Maybe it is because I am from the south and even more importantly small town south (big cities in the south become more impersonal like they do everywhere), or possibly because of how I was raised, but I will always help someone who is young, old, small, weak, etc whether they are male or female with their luggage. I too open doors for women and the elderly. I say hi to total strangers. When a woman is broken down on the highway I stop to help. Not saying I am anything special, it is just what you do according to what I have aklways been taught.

A couple of years ago i saw a lady in a new Cadillac with a flat on the edge of the interstate. I stopped and offered to change the tire for her. I would hope that someone would do the same someday for my daughter or wife. She said thanks so much, i wouldn't have a clue how to change it. It was upper 90's and I was dressed business casual, but I did it anyway. I was covered with sweat and questioning why I stopped about half way through. I  was filthy and had black marks on my shirt and khakis that never totally came out. I felt good though that I had helped this lady in distress. After I put the flat in her trunk she said I guess I had better get back on Onstar and tell them to cancel the wrecker that is on the way to change my tire. It is a free service you get with a Cadillac. I almost said a string of bad words. I instead said have a great day. She said thanks. I said you are welcome and drove away. That good feeling of doing good for others totally left me.

Sometimes it is true that no good deed goes unpunished, but in spite of that  I will stop to help stranded woman motorists again in the future. The next time I will make sure that they don't have AAA or Onstar before changing the tire though.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 21, 2011)

tombo said:


> ...
> Sometimes it is true that no good deed goes unpunished, but in spite of that  I will stop to help stranded woman motorists again in the future. The next time I will make sure that they don't have AAA or Onstar before changing the tire though.


Tombo, I am not saying there aren't helpful people. I am saying that as a whole our society has become less willing to help others.  Maybe for the reason you gave (or similar ones where the good samaritan gets burned).  I think it is also because we just don't "see" need.  We get wrapped up in our own cares and agendas and don't pay attention to what is around us.  We are stressed and in a hurry.

I was responding to Ride's post.  It's not that we don't get involved because we are programmed not to resist authority.  We don't get involved for numerous other reasons based on being lost in our own little worlds.


----------



## pjrose (Jun 21, 2011)

I see struggling with a child seat and/or stroller as a lot different than trying to lift a huge bag into the overhead.  

DH and I would absolutely help with the stroller, seat, and/or children, and I expect that my older kids would too.  If they didn't, I'd nudge them in that direction and say "go help".  If I saw an older, small, and/or otherwise possibly less strong person having luggage problems, I'd nudge my DS over to help.  It's the way we were raised and the way we raised our kids.

If I was enduring the lack of food/drink/restroom while the pilot/flight attendant were flirting or gabbing, first class OR coach, I'd politely say "excuse me, but I really need to use the bathroom" or "Could you please get me some (whatever)", or maybe smile and say "Yikes, if you're out here, who's flying the plane???" as a reminder.  

Only once did I get a tad mouthy with a passenger.....she was a tarted-up 40-something, black cocktail dress cut low at the top and high at the bottom, high stiletto heels, tons of make-up, with the cutest sweetest little boy, maybe 10.  She spent most of her time flirting loudly and drunkenly with the passenger unfortunately stuck next to her and complaining to the stewardesses about just about everything, especially being in coach while she was (supposedly) supposed to be in first class; her little boy wanted to hold her hand or get a hug or go to the bathroom, and she mostly either ignored him or told him to be quiet or said "Stop touching me, you know I don't like to be touched".

Passengers all around were rolling their eyes and giving her looks and saying "shhhhh" - even the little boy was asking mommy to please be quiet.  Finally she started whining about why were people being mean to her and I turned around and said "because you are making a complete fool of yourself and embarrassing your son."  Some people actually applauded me!  She shut up for a while, but in the luggage area, there she was flirting with men, drinking, and ignoring her son. Sad.  Poor kid.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 21, 2011)

Since a few have shared their stories, here's one of mine. While waiting at the gate for the arrival of the inbound aircraft that would be my outbound flight, the gate agent made an announcement explaining a crew member on the inbound was injured. Since the same crew was to accompany the outbound flight, the agent wanted outbound passengers to know that if the flight attendant was unable to make the outbound due to her injury, all passengers would need to be rebooked to a different flight because they are required to have the appropriate number of attendants to fly. 

When the aircraft arrived, the flight attendant was pushed off the aircraft in a wheelchair, in obvious pain. I quickly stepped up to the desk for rebooking, but was behind a couple that whined and complained to the agent about their need to be booked on another aircraft. Apparently they felt flight attendants should be available on call at a moments notice. Typical infrequent flyer, novice misconception. I digress. 

After their verbal assault, they left, and I immediately apologized for these strangers rude behaviour, and commented how it must be difficult to remain courteous toward such idiots. She seemed to appreciate my empathy. I was on my way a short time later, and got home an hour or two late. 

Several days later, I received a hand written round trip voucher to fly anywhere free. I wondered if the obnoxious couple received one. Doubt that...

Yes, there are rude flight attendants, but my experience over many journeys is that the majority are professional, polite and accommodating, considering the crap they have to put up with day in and day out. I wouldn't want their job for a minute, and that's just one reason I treat them with the utmost respect and courtesy. Hopefully it offsets just a bit that they get from others that just don't get it.


----------



## pjrose (Jun 21, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> . . .
> Yes, there are rude flight attendants, but my experience over many journeys is that the majority are professional, polite and accommodating, considering the crap they have to put up with day in and day out. I wouldn't want their job for a minute, and that's just one reason I treat them with the utmost respect and courtesy. Hopefully it offsets just a bit that they get from others that just don't get it.



There are rude people everywhere, but most people are not.  Often when I encounter a rude or just unthinking person, I make a point to be extra friendly and smile and say whatever's appropriate to the situation - "Thank You," "You're Welcome," etc.  I remember many years ago when I must have been in a fog and a complete stranger said "Smile, it can't be that bad!"  I guess maybe I'm kind of paying it forward?  I know that at several stores and restaurants around here there are specific salespeople who know me and comment that they like that I always smile at them.  I'm not making myself out to be a wonderful smiley person - my mouth naturally tends to turn down so I make an effort to bring it up instead - just echoing that as Phydeaux notes, courtesy and respect can go a long way.


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Sure, a passenger struggling with their carry on asks for help from the flight attendant, and instead the flight attendant removes the passenger from the aircraft. Uh huh. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
> 
> Except it doesn't to me. The backlash from other passengers would have exacerbated the problem, or is that also difficult to believe?



Hello???  When did I say he was struggling with carry on luggage????  I said a stroller.  And his struggle was trying to fold it in that tiny hallway with 50 people trying to squeeze past.  At what point did you read that he was struggling with carry on luggage?  We check everything but the kids and the car seat.   I'm sorry, but you were not there.  

At any rate, my intention was not to hijack the thread, just providing an example of over zealous flight attendants.  And by other people's posts, we aren't the only ones who've experienced this.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 21, 2011)

> Yes, there are rude flight attendants, but my experience over many journeys is that the majority are professional, polite and accommodating, considering the crap they have to put up with day in and day out. I wouldn't want their job for a minute, and that's just one reason I treat them with the utmost respect and courtesy. Hopefully it offsets just a bit that they get from others that just don't get it.



I agree with your post. 

We fly a lot, about five times per year, sometimes as many as 7 times per year, and I have never seen a rude flight attendant.  Treat people the way you want to be treated.  

My sister-in-law was a flight attendant for one airline, then United bought her company, so she worked for United for years--about 33 years.  Her regular route the last 20 years or so was SFO-HNL.  She loved her job, and it showed.  She requested First Class because she was able to do more for her passengers.  She also met lots of famous people, including Rose Kennedy and lots of actors and musicians (including my BIL). 

Anyway, Becky was serving drinks on a flight where she wasn't working First Class, and a woman said, "I need to get rid of this dirty diaper."  Becky said, "just one minute and I will get you a bag for disposing of it, and I can put it in the trash."  The woman said something rude, and then she placed the dirty diaper in the ice bucket, the ice bucket the flight attendants were using for the drinks.  And the woman laughed loudly.  Becky said, not quietly, "Thank you for putting that dirty diaper (it was oozing) on our last bucket of ice, ma'am, because now we cannot give anyone ice the last hour of this flight to Oahu.  We don't have unlimited ice on airplanes."  People on the plane applauded Becky, and the woman got dagger looks from everyone.  

I loved this story and remember it always, when I fly, especially when the flight attendants are bringing the cart down the aisle. She had so many great stories.  

This incident was about a month after 9/11, and one of the other flight attendants, who knew Becky very well, went to the woman and said, "Just so you know, we can have you arrested in these times, just for copping an attitude, so I would not say another thing, if I were you."  

I think Becky now wishes she'd stayed at United, even with the loss of benefits and income she suffered over the last many years she worked for the airline.  She bought a house in Ohio and works for the city.  She hates her job.  She was born to serve people.  She is so kind and always smiling.   

I notice how professional the flight attendants are for the flights to Hawaii, and I know for a fact that they are the seasoned attendants, many of whom have been around long enough to see huge changes in the customers' behavior and attitudes.  The way we dress is not at all the way it was many years ago.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 21, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> Hello???  When did I say he was struggling with carry on luggage????  I said a stroller.  And his struggle was trying to fold it in that tiny hallway with 50 people trying to squeeze past.  At what point did you read that he was struggling with carry on luggage?  We check everything but the kids and the car s
> eat.   I'm sorry, but you were not there.
> 
> At any rate, my intention was not to hijack the thread, just providing an example of over zealous flight attendants.  And by other people's posts, we aren't the only ones who've experienced this.



Where did I write carry on luggage? A stroller, a basketball, a oversized bag or a fur sink are all carry ons, when you carry them aboard the aircraft. 

Hello, indeed.


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 21, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Where did I write carry on luggage? A stroller, a basketball, a oversized bag or a fur sink are all carry ons, when you carry them aboard the aircraft.
> 
> Hello, indeed.


the term "carry on" denotes something we carried aboard the aircraft.

We did not carry the stroller aboard the aircraft.  

We left it at the door.  

Semantics I suppose.    However, stepping back to look at the situation, I understand your cynicism.  There is so much going on lately where people swear they are telling you truth, but are actually lying thru their teeth, it's hard to believe someone when they ARE telling the truth.


----------



## Talent312 (Jun 21, 2011)

Not to sound unsympathetic to the rug-rat crowd, but in this respect:
If you can't handle car seats and strollers on your own, you should not board a plane.

You should know that boarding is a cattle call, especially on SWA, and expect to be treated accordingly. There may have been a time when attendants had the luxury of time to help anyone having difficulty. Those days are long gone.

These days, with the insanely quick turnarounds and bus-like quality of airline travel, attendants are little more than ushers and crowd-control, and they know it.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 21, 2011)

Laura - I usually see people step to the side and collapse strollers in the Jetway before they get on the plane, where there is a lot more room.  In fact, I'm surprised they let you on the plane with an open stroller.  That may have been part of the problem - maybe he wasn't supposed to bring the open stroller onto the plane?

Also, didn't you have the opportunity to board early when they call people with children and handicaps?


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 21, 2011)

Talent312 said:


> These days, with the insanely quick turnarounds and bus-like quality of airline travel, attendants are little more than ushers and crowd-control, and they know it.


That may be their day to day responsibility but they also have to know how to evacuate a plane in case of emergency and recognize and respond to passenger threats-potentially terrorist threats.  They have to undergo rigorous training and be physically able to do certain jobs other than serving drinks and peanuts.

-----------------------------------------

My sister was a flight attendant for a brief period of time just prior to 9/11.  The stories she tells!  If your flight attendant seems a little testy maybe she's had to listen to the same joke for the hundredth time that day.  Maybe she's exhausted.  Maybe she just had to remove a bloody kotex and panties from a seat pocket.  (or the dirty diaper in the ice bucket)

Sure they are _paid_ to be nice but are any of us any better?  Each one of us is an authority figure to someone else.  The most obvious one is parenthood.  Do we always perform up to our ideal standard of parenthood?  If any of us has ever been tired, cranky, insensitive, or served fast food to the ones we love the most in this whole world, should we really think a flight attendant should always behave better than we do?  I don't.  If one of them is especially rude or out of line, I would report it but I'll let the day to day testiness of life pass by.  It isn't worth my time or emotion to get upset about a fellow life traveler having a less than stellar moment. Especially one who has a stress-filled job.

Do they overstep authority sometimes?  Certainly.  Do we overstep ours?  Most certainly.  But I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because as a bystander I don't always know the full situation.  Does a guy with low ride pants bother me?  No.  Does his refusal to comply with a flight attendant bother me?  Heck, yes!


----------



## am1 (Jun 21, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Laura - I usually see people step to the side and collapse strollers in the Jetway before they get on the plane, where there is a lot more room.  In fact, I'm surprised they let you on the plane with an open stroller.  That may have been part of the problem - maybe he wasn't supposed to bring the open stroller onto the plane?
> 
> Also, didn't you have the opportunity to board early when they call people with children and handicaps?



How I read it was that he was trying to collapse the stroller in the jetway as she said it was left at the door and they were not trying to carry the stroller onto the airplane.  How would people get by a man and a stroller in aisle? 

If that was the case I would have just left the stroller at the door as it was if he was not capable of collapsing it.  

DeniseM it is not my intention to disagree with another one of your posts and hopefully you will not hold it against me.  

I also think there is more to that story.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 21, 2011)

am1 said:


> How I read it was that he was trying to collapse the stroller in the jetway as she said it was left at the door and they were not trying to carry the stroller onto the airplane.  How would people get by a man and a stroller in aisle?
> 
> If that was the case I would have just left the stroller at the door as it was if he was not capable of collapsing it.
> 
> ...



OK - by "tiny hallway," I thought she meant the airplane aisle.  I see people pull off to the side and fold up strollers in the large part of the jetway outside the door of the plane on every flight.  Maybe her DH was not familiar with how the stroller collapsed?  Many of them are not easy to fold up if you don't know how.

However, if they boarded early, when people are given lots of time and special assistance, there shouldn't have been 50 people trying to squeeze past him.  At the door of the plane, you pretty much have to line up single file or 2-wide at the most, so I don't understand how there could be people trying to squeeze past him if he pulled over to the side of the Jetway and let other go on?  

Hopefully, Laura will clarify.


----------



## MommaBear (Jun 21, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> That may be their day to day responsibility but they also have to know how to evacuate a plane in case of emergency and recognize and respond to passenger threats-potentially terrorist threats.  They have to undergo rigorous training and be physically able to do certain jobs other than serving drinks and peanuts.
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> ...


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 21, 2011)

MommaBear said:


> Flight attendants first job is safety for all the passengers. They are actually NOT supposed to lift any luggage, because of the number of injuries that have been sustained, and they cannot afford to be injured in case an emergency happens. Should they have helped a family who couldn't fold a stroller? I wasn't there to speak to that. Maybe yes, maybe no.



I thought the question was...should a man be thrown off a flight because he has trouble folding a stroller


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 21, 2011)

> And just to get another argument rolling...



You know, it sounds so much more appropriate when you call it a "debate."


----------



## MommaBear (Jun 21, 2011)

When is a debate an argument? When is a stroller a carry on? When are pants too low? It is so often a matter of context, tone of voice and situational.  

The one time I really thought someone was going to get in trouble and they didn't was when a passenger said to the TSA employee who was wanding him down "So, why are there no Walmarts in Iraq? Because there is a Target on every corner." I started cringing thinking that there was going to be a confrontation. What happened? The TSA employee told that same joke to the next fellow he was wanding down! Go figure...


----------



## MommaBear (Jun 21, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I thought the question was...should a man be thrown off a flight because he has trouble folding a stroller



I had gotten the impression the issue became he had trouble folding the stroller then had words with the flight attendant. I sure hope it wasn't just because he couldn't fold a stroller!


----------



## am1 (Jun 21, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Hopefully, Laura will clarify.



Not sure what needs clarifying.  It is pretty clear to me.


----------



## Talent312 (Jun 21, 2011)

am1 said:


> Not sure what needs clarifying.  It is pretty clear to me.



What's not clear, reading btw. the lines, is whether the guy acted like a jerk he was when having "words" with the attendant. There are people in this world who, while otherwise saintly, when sufficiently annoyed, will behave in ways that others interpret as hostile or threatening.

Those who expect others to anticipate their needs thru intuition, osmosis or ESP, often act this way.  I'm not saying that this applies to the stroller-issue, just that those with "anger management" issues are most at risk of losing their cool in stressful situations.


----------



## Tia (Jun 21, 2011)

That was a very kind thing for you to do and totally thoughtless of her to wait to mention Onstar was on their way before you started. 




tombo said:


> ...A couple of years ago i saw a lady in a new Cadillac with a flat on the edge of the interstate. I stopped and offered to change the tire for her. I would hope that someone would do the same someday for my daughter or wife. She said thanks so much, i wouldn't have a clue how to change it. It was upper 90's and I was dressed business casual, but I did it anyway. I was covered with sweat and questioning why I stopped about half way through. I  was filthy and had black marks on my shirt and khakis that never totally came out. I felt good though that I had helped this lady in distress. After I put the flat in her trunk she said I guess I had better get back on Onstar and tell them to cancel the wrecker that is on the way to change my tire. It is a free service you get with a Cadillac. I almost said a string of bad words. I instead said have a great day. She said thanks. I said you are welcome and drove away. That good feeling of doing good for others totally left me.....


----------



## pjrose (Jun 21, 2011)

Tia said:


> That was a very kind thing for you to do and totally thoughtless of her to wait to mention Onstar was on their way before you started.



I completely agree.  And I'm amazed that you just left politely.  I wouldn't have been able to resist a comment....not rude, but "Gee, I wish you had told me you had OnStar before I did all this work and got so dirty....."


----------



## scrapngen (Jun 21, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> People don't really step up like that anymore...Everyone has been programmed to sort of 'sit down and shut up' they've been taught that if they try to fight the system they can't win, people just don't believe they matter or can make a difference anymore
> 
> This country has swung full circle from the time when people knew their neighbors and stopped to let old women walk across the street, now we check websites for child molesters and don't let our kids walk down the block to the park alone and speed up so we can get through the intersection before the old lady gets there...*It's gotten to the point women are suprised when i hold the door for them*



Is the surprise because you have to let go of your pants to open the door??? Just joking, Ride, I  couldn't stop myself!  Seriously,  I'm glad to know that you are a door opener! This simple act of courtesy is less and less common - I teach my girls to open doors for the elderly or any one else if they arrive first as well as offer their seats on a bus, etc. and try to lead by example. I tell them that how one responds to service people, and knowledge of simple courtesies can be a good indicator of the type of person they are. (i.e. don't marry the guy who consistantly makes demands and treats the waiter/maid/flight attendant badly) 

I, too, think what goes around comes around, and you never know what has happened in another person's day to make them grumpy or whatever. Sometimes I'll remember that before I lose my own temper or get irritated by whatever situation I am facing.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 22, 2011)

*Is the United States becoming a police dictatorship?*

First, as a general rule offensive behavior is  not illegal behavior.  However, when you are in a "private" facility you must abide by the rules of the facility even if it is a dress code.  In a public place first amendment constitutional protection applies.  Therefore, in a public place a law banning orange shirts would most likely be deemed unconstitutional.  Not so, in a private place.

Is the there a dress code on airplanes?  I don't know.  Is an airplane a public or a private place under the law?  I don't know.

Public law officers are not allowed unfettered discretion in our nation to determine what a person can or can't do.  The police must follow the law.

A very common bogus charge by police who want to justify THEIR illegal action is "resisting arrest".   If citizens of the united states are required by law to follow every instruction of a law enforcement officer, we would be living in a true police state.  If a law enforcement officer told you to stand on one leg and whistle yankee doodle dandy would you be required to do it?  Would failure to do it be justification for charging you with a crime?


----------



## tombo (Jun 22, 2011)

pjrose said:


> I completely agree.  And I'm amazed that you just left politely.  I wouldn't have been able to resist a comment....not rude, but "Gee, I wish you had told me you had OnStar before I did all this work and got so dirty....."



What almost came out was "YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!" followed by bad words. Instead I kept my tongue until I was driving down the interstate and expletive deletives were shouted and screamed by me for several miles. After I cussed most of my anger out I called my wife and said you aren't going to believe what happened to me and got mad all over again.

I resisted because I had spent all that time, effort, and sweat to do something nice and I decided why ruin it by yelling at her, saying bad words, and possibly scaring her. I am a large man and to let my anger run wild verbally against a single woman who was alone with me on the edge of the interstate could have been very frightening to her. Looking back I am glad I held my tongue until I was alone in my car, but it was hard to do.


----------



## heathpack (Jun 22, 2011)

tombo said:


> Maybe it is because I am from the south and even more importantly small town south (big cities in the south become more impersonal like they do everywhere), or possibly because of how I was raised, but I will always help someone who is young, old, small, weak, etc whether they are male or female with their luggage. I too open doors for women and the elderly. I say hi to total strangers. When a woman is broken down on the highway I stop to help. Not saying I am anything special, it is just what you do according to what I have aklways been taught.
> 
> A couple of years ago i saw a lady in a new Cadillac with a flat on the edge of the interstate. I stopped and offered to change the tire for her. I would hope that someone would do the same someday for my daughter or wife. She said thanks so much, i wouldn't have a clue how to change it. It was upper 90's and I was dressed business casual, but I did it anyway. I was covered with sweat and questioning why I stopped about half way through. I  was filthy and had black marks on my shirt and khakis that never totally came out. I felt good though that I had helped this lady in distress. After I put the flat in her trunk she said I guess I had better get back on Onstar and tell them to cancel the wrecker that is on the way to change my tire. It is a free service you get with a Cadillac. I almost said a string of bad words. I instead said have a great day. She said thanks. I said you are welcome and drove away. That good feeling of doing good for others totally left me.
> 
> Sometimes it is true that no good deed goes unpunished, but in spite of that  I will stop to help stranded woman motorists again in the future. The next time I will make sure that they don't have AAA or Onstar before changing the tire though.



You still did the right thing.  Think of how you would have felt later if you had just driven by and then heard on the news about the lady in the Cadillac waiting for onstar to show up and change her tire- but before they could arrive she was abducted and is now missing.

When you change that lady's tire, in part you are doing it for her.  But more you are doing it for yourself- because you want to live in the type of society where someone helps your daughter or wife similarly.  It does not matter if the recepient is grateful or deserving (although admittedly way nicer if they are), it matters only that you do what you can to make society operate as it should, you cannot control things beyond your own actions.

Its the same reason PJ smiles at the shop attendants and Phydeaux & Cindy are extra nice to flight attendants.  Its the reason why mature, reasonable people pull their pants up when asked to on an airplane- oh, sorry, I did not realize that was bothering anyone, pants are up now.

Sorry but this boy on the plane was a petulant fool, especially the nonesense about pulling his pants down further.  It is legit to worry about the mental stability of a person who does something like that and whether it is wise to take off with him on-board.  Totally reasonable to remove him from the plane.  Anyone who thinks he has a contitutional right to behave however he damn well pleases on an airplane is unfortunately mistaken.

Hopefully there will be consequences to his actions- more difficult to fly, a dressing down from his coach, worry about losing his scholarship.  However, I don't think he should go to jail or even get community service.  Just that he have enough consequences to grow up a little.

H


----------



## heathpack (Jun 22, 2011)

Tombo's story reminds me of an incident we had last year sailing.  We were maybe 10-15 miles offshore, having a nice sail home the day after some really nasty weather caused us to seek refuge in a harbor 40 miles from home.

All day we heard on the radio calls from the Coast Guard to be on the lookout for a missing mariner and we could see them flying search patterns but we did not know what had happened.

Then way off in the distance, we spot a little dinghy, we put the sails away and turn on the engine and motor over, takes us maybe 30 minutes to get there.  The dinghy is empty, we wonder if maybe a boat sank in the heavy seas the day before, someone tried to get into the dinghy and fell overboard.  We get a tow line onto the dinghy and radio the Coast Guard.

Coast Guard tells us the dinghy has nothing to do with the missing sailor, it fell off a powerboat the day before and it could not be retrieved in the heavy seas.  They give us the contact info for the dinghy's owner.

Now this is a really nice dinghy- center console, 5-person, rigid inflatable, fully functional new-looking 40HP Yahama outboard, total package worth about $10,000.  This is quite a prize and according to maritime law, we can legally claim salvage on this dinghy, meaning we found it, we rescued it, it is legitimately ours even though we know who owned it before.  Do we call the guy and say we found your dinghy and we are claiming salvage on it?  Or do we call the guy and say we have your dinghy, meet us and we will give it back?

As you can guess, we did the latter.  Towed this big heavy dinghy home 20 miles, slowed us down enough that we could not sail the rest of the day, we were already a day late getting back.  We actually ran the motor and burned fuel (which sailors hate to do).  The next day, Mr. H drove 40 miles round trip in LA traffic to meet the guy, who was of course a rich guy in a big powerboat.  He did say thank you and gave Mr. H a six pack of beer, but between gasoline in the truck driving back and forth, diesel fuel in the boat and a lost day of sailing, the dinghy retrieval endeavor was a loss for us.

Are we sorry we gave it back?  No, we hope if we lost our dinghy and someone found it that they would give it back.  But how could we reasonably hope for that if we'd be unwilling to do the same?  We do wish the guy had been considerate enough to at least reimburse our expenses in retreiving his dinghy for him, but other than that, we have no regrets. 

Do the right thing for all involved and the world will be a better place.

H


----------



## l2trade (Jun 22, 2011)

someone had to post this hypocrisy, same airline...   

*Warning: don't click link at work!*

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=91446

"
Marman's attorney, Joe O'Sullivan, said his client had been stereotyped by US Airways as a thug, and that the airline was guilty of racial discrimination for asking Marman to adjust his clothes. Marman is African American.

"It just shows the hypocrisy involved," O'Sullivan said after he viewed the photo of the cross-dressing passenger. "They let a drag queen board a flight and welcomed him with open arms. Employees didn't ask him to cover up. He didn't have to talk to the pilot. They didn't try to remove him from the plane -- and many people would find his attire repugnant."
"​


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

l2trade said:


> someone had to post this hypocrisy, same airline...
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=91446
> 
> ...



Wow, Just so everyone knows...i wouldn't click on that link if your at work...Even though everything is covered...people will look at you funny for the rest of your life if they see you looking at a picture like that...i think i maybe scarred for life


----------



## Karen G (Jun 22, 2011)

l2trade said:


> someone had to post this hypocrisy, same airline...


 The last part of the quoted article sums up the real issue here:

Wunder reiterated the airline's stance that Marman had not been removed from the US Airways flight last week because of his clothing, but because *he had failed to comply with an employee's request.*

"The root of the matter is, if you don't comply with the captain's requests," Wunder said, "the captain has the right to handle the issue because it's one of safety."

This was a different crew and a different issue. To make it now a racial one is way off-base.


----------



## l2trade (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Wow, Just so everyone knows...i wouldn't click on that link if your at work...Even though everything is covered...people will look at you funny for the rest of your life if they see you looking at a picture like that...i think i maybe scarred for life



Sorry about that Ride.  I updated my previous post with a warning.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

Karen G said:


> The last part of the quoted article sums up the real issue here:
> 
> Wunder reiterated the airline's stance that Marman had not been removed from the US Airways flight last week because of his clothing, but because *he had failed to comply with an employee's request.*
> 
> ...



Saggy pants are an issue of safety aboard a plane?  It just seems silly, Sure it maybe within his power to thow anyone off the plane for any reason.....But this is abit of an abuse of that power...At what point to we stand up and say, 'ok, this is getting rediculous' When the captains start only allowing redheads on the planes? or insisting only women 18-27 with a certain cup size are allowed to fly?  Sure he can throw off everyone else...But is it something we really should be defending?


----------



## tombo (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Saggy pants are an issue of safety aboard a plane?  It just seems silly, Sure it maybe within his power to thow anyone off the plane for any reason.....But this is abit of an abuse of that power...At what point to we stand up and say, 'ok, this is getting rediculous' When the captains start only allowing redheads on the planes? or insisting only women 18-27 with a certain cup size are allowed to fly?  Sure he can throw off everyone else...But is it something we really should be defending?



The issue of safety is the request from the captain to pull up his pants which he not only refused to do, he pulled them down further. The pilot should not take off with a passenger on board who refuses to comply with the simple request of pulling up his pants.

As to the other pic I would rather see saggy pant's underwear than that other guy. How did he even make it throught TSA? I would complain and ask for him to get dressed or removed.


----------



## Karen G (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Saggy pants are an issue of safety aboard a plane?


No, but failure to comply with instructions is.  

The saggy pants could become a safety issue if there's an emergency and passengers have to make a quick exist. If Mr. Saggy Pants trips because of his pants and blocks the aisle for everyone else, that might be a problem.  But, the real problem, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, is the young man's attitude and non-compliance with requests from the captain and crew.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Wow!  I would be extremely uncomfortable sitting next to anyone clad only in underwear.  I can't believe they let him on the plane!


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

Karen G said:


> No, but failure to comply with instructions is.



I guess when completely taken out of context...If the Pilot insists that you must float in mid-air while boarding the flight or maybe turn purple or just remove one of your arms or legs using only your teeth....He could throw you off for not complying also....

The thing is...When taken in context...the thing is saggy pants in no way interfer with a captain or the flight attendants abilities to do their jobs...the request was an abuse of power that only came about because of the way he looked(Large man, big baggy clothes, the way someone looks isn't a race thing for me, its how they present themselves)


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Ride - how about the guy in the bra and panties - can he sit next to your 5 year old on the plane?


----------



## tombo (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The thing is...When taken in context...the thing is saggy pants in no way interfer with a captain or the flight attendants abilities to do their jobs...the request was an abuse of power that only came about because of the way he looked(Large man, big baggy clothes, the way someone looks isn't a race thing for me, its how they present themselves)



The article said that customers complained about the man in the undies before he boarded the flight, yet they did nothing about it. That is the flight crew that needs to be reprimanded or fired, not the one who addressed the unacceptable clothing situation where underwear was on display for all to see. both of those passengers should have had to cover up their underwear or have been denied access to the flight.

I would have complained to the stewardess about saggy pants showing his underwear and let them handle it. They did try to handle it and he became unruly and defiant.  he could have pulled up his pants and stayed on the flight. he instead pulled his pants all the way down and missed the flight. He decided he would rather show his butt than stay on the plane. Actions have consequences.

If saggy pants put his boxer shorts in your face or the face of your daughter  as he put his luggage in the overhead, you might have complained to the stewardess too.I can assure you I would have whether he was white, black, yellow, or purple.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Ride - how about the guy in the bra and panties - can he sit next to your 5 year old on the plane?



Yah that'd be an issue for me...i'd make sure at the very least he had a blanket over him for the ride...and no way he'd sit next to my daughter(I'd insist on sitting between them)i'd in no way want to fly with that guy sitting next to me or my daughter and i'd make an issue of it, at the very least insisting her seat was changed...see but the problem is my liberal side gets in the way......I feel for some reason that i have to defend his right to dress and his freedom of expression...i think its this poem from the 1950's that gets me...




> First they came for the communists,
> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
> 
> Then they came for the trade unionists,
> ...



Or in this case, i guess you can subsitute Communist with Crossdressers and trade unionist with Baggy clothing wearers

It is interesting that they'd rather let that guy fly then the guy in baggy pants


----------



## pjrose (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> It is interesting that they'd rather let that guy fly then the guy in baggy pants



But it wasn't baggy pants - it was underwear showing.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 22, 2011)

Well Ride, you’ve gone from these remarks:

_...i don't want to live in a nation where there is no individuality and its not worth risking that freedom because i see a person dressed in a way i don't like
if you offended by seeing someone in shorts so much, you really need to figure out whats wrong with you...
The freedom of expression and freedom of speech aren't just limited to please and thank you...they allow people to express their thoughts and beliefs even if those beliefs are controversial to some....
...i was always taught that Everyone is equal and deserves equal respect
....he was singled out specificly [sic] because of how he looked_

To this? 



Ridewithme38 said:


> Even though everything is covered...people will look at you funny for the rest of your life if they see you looking at a picture like that...*i think i maybe scarred for life*



Isn't this individual also expressing their individuality? 

Interesting.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Well Ride, you’ve gone from these remarks:
> 
> _...i don't want to live in a nation where there is no individuality and its not worth risking that freedom because i see a person dressed in a way i don't like
> if you offended by seeing someone in shorts so much, you really need to figure out whats wrong with you...
> ...



Just because i don't like how he's dressed doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to dress that way...Just means i'll avoid him at all costs


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Just because i don't like how he's dressed doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to dress that way...Just means i'll avoid him at all costs



But someone has to sit next to him on the plane - what about THEIR rights?

In our country, the rights of one do not supersede the rights of many.

You are defending his right to dress in an extreme way that makes others uncomfortable, but you won't sit by him - you expect someone else to.  HELLO?


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Just because i don't like how he's dressed doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to dress that way...Just means i'll avoid him at all costs



*http://tinyurl.com/nycl4*


----------



## l2trade (Jun 22, 2011)

I suspect US airways and other airlines may soon institute official dress code policies.  Just like fast food joints did decades ago with "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

The airport is a public place, but the airline's plane is a private business.  So long as rules are simple, clearly displayed and non-discriminatory, us airways would be well within their rights to do so before boarding the plane.

By not having a clear policy, us airways has opened themselves up to accusations of bias and bad press and consumer complaints by other passengers...  Flying sucks nowadays, all the way around!


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Just because i don't like how he's dressed doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to dress that way...Just means i'll avoid him at all costs





Phydeaux said:


> *http://tinyurl.com/nycl4*



I'm not sure that that statement is hypocritical...i don't like anchovies or Ketchup and avoid them at all costs....that doesn't mean i believe they should be banned...i don't like cats...at all...and definatly avoid them and will comment to people who own them...but i don't believe people shouldn't have the right to own them(i just question the judgement of those that do)  I believe that about alot of things...

Laws shouldn't really be based on peoples opinions on things...they should be based on cold, hard facts...sure the guy in the thong and bra is a disgusting freak(IMO) but does it really harm anyone(The Scarred for life comment was sarcasm) seeing him like that? i may not like to see it, or want my daughter to be around people like that....but really there is no harm to it, its just not something i want to be part of my life or be around...like cats and ketchup


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> But someone has to sit next to him on the plane - what about THEIR rights?
> 
> In our country, the rights of one do not supersede the rights of many.
> 
> You are defending his right to dress in an extreme way that makes others uncomfortable, but you won't sit by him - you expect someone else to.  HELLO?



I don't expect anyone to want to or to ever sit by him...if they don't like the way he's dressed they can take issue with it like i would and have their seats or flight changed or even change airlines if they don't agree with the airlines rules on dress code

What happened to those that didn't like smoking back when people were allowed to smoke on planes...that was before my time...but i'd think they'd either asked to be moved away from the smokers, pick non-smoking flights or non-smoking airlines


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I don't expect anyone to want to or to ever sit by him...if they don't like the way he's dressed they can take issue with it like i would and have their seats or flight changed or even change airlines if they don't agree with the airlines rules on dress code



Again - in our country, the rights of one do not supersede the rights of many.  That's EXACTLY why we have smoking laws now - thanks for proving my point!

So where do you draw the line?  Can he fly in just women's panties and nothing else?  Can he fly in a G-string?  Can he fly in transparent undies that show his genitals?  Can he fly naked?

You get on the plane you and your daughter are seated.  It's a full flight.  This guy is the last one to get on the plane and he sits next to you and your daughter.  You asked to be moved, and the flight attendant says, "I'm sorry, there are no empty seats on the plane."  

Are you going to sit there for 5 hours mentally defending his right to fly in women's underwear, or are you going to be asking, "WHY doesn't this airline have a dress code?"

Be honest here Ride - fight the impulse to go trollish!


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Again - in our country, the rights of one do not supersede the rights of many.  That's EXACTLY why we have smoking laws now - thanks for proving my point!



Thats why i brought up the quote before...where does it end? Can a women not fly with her infant because it may cry and disturb other passangers? Can a person not wear perfume on the flight because the smell disturbs some? What if someone owns a cat and three people on board are alergic to cats? Once you let (sorry about this) 'the cat out of the bag' you end up with everything gone...this was the problem with (Political comment pre-removed) once the rights start going...they keep going until everything is gone

Sure we can say one persons right doesn't supercede anothers...but everyone has a right to fly or not fly on that plane


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Ride - you are still saying that the rights of one supersede the rights of many.

You are saying that everyone on the plane that is uncomfortable with a guy in his underwear should get off the plane, because his rights to expose himself supersede the rights of everyone else.

Sorry - I don't believe you even mean it.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Ride - you are still saying that the rights of one supersede the rights of many.
> 
> You are saying that everyone on the plane that is uncomfortable with a guy in his underwear should get off the plane, because his rights to expose himself supersede the rights of everyone else.
> 
> Sorry - I don't believe you even mean it.



Let me ask you then...You have kids...If you are boarding a redeye flight and your child is crying...now the 4 people i am traveling with are complaining to the flight attendent about the noise but you can't get the baby to stop crying...You're saying that we are completely in our rights to have you thrown off the plane?

How about another example? A Friend you are traveling with is wearing an obscene amout of florally perfume...the three people sitting behind and the three people sitting infront of your friends row complain that they can hardly breath because of the smell....They are in the right to have your friend thrown off the plane?

Where does it end? 2 people on the plane complain that they won't travel with someone with their hair dyed blue...will that person now be escorted off?

Its a slippery slope is all i'm saying...and not really one i'm comfortable standing on top of


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Let's put your convictions to the test:

Scenario:  You and your daughter are sitting in an exit row, so of course you have to sit by the emergency exit.  The plane is full and Mr. Cross Dresser sits by your daughter - in his ticketed seat.  There are no other seats, and you can't trade seats with your daughter because a child can't sit by the emergency exit.  The flight attendant says there are no empty seats to move to.  You are stuck.

What are you going to do?

1. Let your daughter sit next to him for 5 hours.

2.  Get off the flight and forfeit your hard earned money and vacation.

Either way, you are perfectly happy with your choice, because after all, his rights supersede your daughters right not to be subjected to adult men who are exposing themselves.  

And you won't complain to the airline afterwards, because you feel that he has a right to dress how ever he wants.  

If you do complain, the airline tells you that the other passenger had the right to dress that way, and it was YOUR CHOICE to forfeit your flight, so they feel no obligation to reimburse you or put you on another flight, because they were not at fault.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I'm not sure that that statement is hypocritical...i don't like anchovies or Ketchup and avoid them at all costs....that doesn't mean i believe they should be banned...i don't like cats...at all...and definatly avoid them and will comment to people who own them...but i don't believe people shouldn't have the right to own them(i just question the judgement of those that do)  I believe that about alot of things...
> 
> Laws shouldn't really be based on peoples opinions on things...they should be based on cold, hard facts...sure the guy in the thong and bra is a disgusting freak(IMO) but does it really harm anyone(The Scarred for life comment was sarcasm) seeing him like that? i may not like to see it, or want my daughter to be around people like that....but really there is no harm to it, its just not something i want to be part of my life or be around...like cats and ketchup


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Let's put your convictions to the test:
> 
> Scenario:



Wait! You never responded to my Scenario's!


----------



## am1 (Jun 22, 2011)

Why not just let this thread disappear?  You know what they say about winning an argument on the internet.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Wait! You never responded to my Scenario's!



Your scenarios were not logical - you were comparing apples to oranges.  All societies have cultural norms of decency.  Crying babies and blue hair are not indecent.  

You said yourself that you found the cross dresser's attire inappropriate for your daughter - i.e. indecent for a 5 year old to be exposed to.

The bottom line is that you SAY you have these convictions, but they don't apply to you.

You can't reply to my scenario, because it will expose that little fact....


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

am1 said:


> Why not just let this thread disappear?  You know what they say about winning an argument on the internet.



The thing is i think we kinda agree on the important parts...None of us would have wanted to sit next to that guy...and are pretty sure it wasn't appropriate for him to dress that way....

The question i think we are in disagreement about is, does his right to express himself through dress supercede our right to see him like that...Is one persons right more important then another persons right..and if so, who's right wins?


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

am1 said:


> Why not just let this thread disappear?  You know what they say about winning an argument on the internet.



Is it bothering you?  It isn't violating any TUG rules....  You can always stop reading it.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Your scenarios were not logical - you were comparing apples to oranges.  All societies have cultural norms of decency.  Crying babies and blue hair are not indecent.



Indecent is defined as 



> 1.offending against generally accepted standards of propriety or good taste; improper; vulgar: indecent jokes; indecent language; indecent behavior.
> 2. not decent; unbecoming or unseemly: indecent haste.



A crying baby and Blue hair and too much Perfume are all indecent...those are all the next logical step in banning after you outlaw clothing choices


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Indecent is defined as A crying baby and Blue hair and too much Perfume are all indecent


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


>



i can't see these pictures at work  thats the second one i've missed!


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The thing is i think we kinda agree on the important parts...None of us would have wanted to sit next to that guy...and are pretty sure it wasn't appropriate for him to dress that way....
> 
> The question i think we are in disagreement about is, does his right to express himself through dress supercede our right to see him like that...Is one persons right more important then another persons right..and if so, who's right wins?



Fortunately, in our society, a child's right to NOT be exposed to an indecent adult always supersedes the adult's right to expose themselves.   

I HOPE as the parent of a 5 year old girl that you agree with that!


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Indecent is defined as  A crying baby and Blue hair and too much Perfume are all indecent...those are all the next logical step in banning after you outlaw clothing choices



Darn - you just went completely trollish!   

You know that's not the definition of indecent.

I'm done!  No fun debating when you can't defend your convictions.

Here you go-


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Darn - you just went completely trollish!
> 
> You know that's not the definition of indecent.
> 
> ...



 Yah i've been having an off-day...maybe we can talk about this another time...todays just too busy at work...i haven't really been thinking before typing


----------



## Patri (Jun 22, 2011)

You've been typing all this at work????? Does your boss know?


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 22, 2011)

Patri said:


> You've been typing all this at work????? Does your boss know?


You know, I was going to make a comment that, isn't this the same guy who was talking about how his generation has to work so hard to support the aging population so they can sit home and collect their SSI (I am paraphrasing here...not his exact words, just his sentiment).

But hey, who am I to judge???


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> You know, I was going to make a comment that, isn't this the same guy who was talking about how his generation has to work so hard to support the aging population so they can sit home and collect their SSI (I am paraphrasing here...not his exact words, just his sentiment).
> 
> But hey, who am I to judge???



I got lucky...i've got a job sitting behind a desk all day...its mind numbing, but it pays well


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 22, 2011)

ok, I have to reply to the too much perfume.  I don't have the ANSWER to this, just the question.

Smoking on planes was banned, due to the ill effects on people.  Well, what if you are on a plane and the person who sits next to you is wearing a perfume that makes you nauseous?  I am not saying, the perfume smells bad.  What I am saying is, I have the unfortunate luck of being "allergic" to a fragrance.  I say allergic because I don't know how else to describe it, and I say fragrance because I don't know what IT is, I only know what it smells like.  IT is in perfumes, some scents of Fabreze, dreft stain remover, who knows what else.

It isn't that I find the smell offensive, I used to wear it as perfume, which is how I found out that this particular scent causes me to be nauseous.    Very nauseous, to the point that if I sit and inhale it long enough I'm pretty certain I will vomit.  Haven't tested that one out yet, I do my best to remove myself before it gets that bad.  

While there is no law stipulating you can't wear perfume on a plane, I can guarantee you that you would not want to be sitting next to me wearing that fragrance in any form, especially if I cannot get up and move.

So, does that person's right to wear the perfume supersede my right not to get so sick I would vomit mid flight?  

Like I said, I don't know the answer, just curious what everyone thinks about THAT one, imagine if it were _you _ in my shoes.


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 22, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I got lucky...i've got a job sitting behind a desk all day...its mind numbing, but it pays well



ok, let me make sure I understand this...we buy goods and or services from the company YOU work for, so they can generate revenue, a part of which they use to pay your salary, so that you can sit on your tush and type on TUG?  Is it just me who gets this, because from where I'm sitting it looks like it's US, supporting you!


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> ok, let me make sure I understand this...we buy goods and or services from the company YOU work for, so they can generate revenue, a part of which they use to pay your salary, so that you can sit on your tush and type on TUG?  Is it just me who gets this, because from where I'm sitting it looks like it's US, supporting you!



haha.....:rofl: 

That does sound right


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jun 22, 2011)

My AOL account has the blur which happen 3 days earlier than PJ pants dude. US Airways had a guy who flew from FLL (Ft Lauderdale) in women's underwear. Complete with pictures. It is a hoot ... and uglier than all get-out.

Ride, YOU would have been locked up if this guy sat next to your daughter.


----------



## Karen G (Jun 22, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> My AOL account has the blur which happen 3 days earlier than PJ pants dude. US Airways had a guy who flew from FLL (Ft Lauderdale) in women's underwear. Complete with pictures. It is a hoot ... and uglier than all get-out.
> 
> Ride, YOU would have been locked up if this guy sat next to your daughter.


See post #150 of this thread. Several people been talking about that guy.


----------



## pjrose (Jun 22, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> My AOL account has the blur which happen 3 days earlier than PJ pants dude. US Airways had a guy who flew from FLL (Ft Lauderdale) in women's underwear. Complete with pictures. It is a hoot ... and uglier than all get-out.
> 
> Ride, YOU would have been locked up if this guy sat next to your daughter.



Oh my, I just looked at our friend in the woman's scanties.  Well, I think he has the right to strut his stuff on a beach or at a pool (after all, he is more covered than women in bikinis or men in Speedos), but I don't think he should be in a plane or at a mall or restaurant any more than a woman in a bikini should be.  It's not the cross-dressing that I object to, it's the amount of skin that is showing and the tightness of the clothes over what is not showing. 

I think a dress code is in order....perhaps one that (at least) says no exposed torsos, cleavage, or underwear?  Clean?  Neat?  But by whose standards?  That's when it gets tricky.  

At DD's technical school, the students are supposed to dress professionally, which could be scrubs, could be khakis and polo shirt, depending on the major, but definitely not jeans, shorts, skirts that are too shirt or blouses cut too low. They signed agreement with same as one of the conditions of admission. 

They try to enforce the policy, but some students persist in dressing in jeans or showing cleavage.   As a for-profit school I suspect they don't want to lose a student so students do get away with it.

So.....one male student was told several times not to wear jeans, but he protested that some of the female students were showing cleavage or wearing short skirts, hence the policy was inconsistently enforced.  He decided to wear a dress to school - the dress code does not explicitly prohibit cross-dressing.  I believe the first time or two he wore it, they told him to go home and change, but he didn't.  Now DD says that he frequently shows up in women's clothes, presumably to make his points that the code is inconsistently enforced but his attire isn't against the dress code.  Rumor has it that he's planning to sue the school for discrimination, so I suspect that they're not kicking him out so as not to support his case.

He might get away with it at school, but I'll bet his attitude won't get him too far once he's in the work world.


----------



## am1 (Jun 22, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Is it bothering you?  It isn't violating any TUG rules....  You can always stop reading it.



I am glad you took my advice.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

am1 said:


> I am glad you took my advice.



I had to..... I felt guilty dueling with an unarmed man!


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 22, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> But someone has to sit next to him on the plane - what about THEIR rights?
> 
> In our country, the rights of one do not supersede the rights of many.
> 
> You are defending his right to dress in an extreme way that makes others uncomfortable, but you won't sit by him - you expect someone else to.  HELLO?



Your idea of rights in our country is pretty much wrong.  When it comes to constitutional rights the rights of one DOES SUPERCEDE the "rights" of many.  That is how we protect the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.   Dress is clearly a form of expression or speech.  Speech in a public place is protected against the "rights" which really means the "opinions" of many.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Every year I read and teach the constitution with my Government Class and my US History Class.  It clearly states that an individual's rights cannot infringe on the rights of others.

That's why we have indecent exposure laws.  Now if you think a man in bikini panties and a bra on an airplane are not indecent, then there is no place to go from there.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Every year I read and teach the constitution with my Government Class and my US History Class.  It clearly states that an individual's rights cannot infringe on the rights of others.  YMMV



What right is being infringed by someone sitting next to you on a plane who clothing you don't like?

Like i know what rights define the persons ability to wear those clothes, their right to free expression and/or speech...but what right is being violated by someone else dressing in a way that offends someone else?  Is there a right to not be offended in the constitution or Bill or rights?  

I didn't know you taught US Government...


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 22, 2011)

Ride!  You got out of the hole!   

Have a great evening!


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 23, 2011)

Deshon's Interview....I'm not going to comment on this
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=8198074


Here is a petition that is circulating demanding US airways apologize to the young man who was thrown off the flight...Most comments focus on racism...but i'm avoiding that issue, i think racism is a pretty strong term that needs equally strong proof...I think Saggy pants are more of a cultural thing...so i'd call it cultural-ism...i had thought it was an issue of size also...but looking up his size it states 6'1 210lbs....i'm 6'2 205-215lbs...he's not really a big intimidating guy

http://www.change.org/petitions/tel...f-the-plane-and-having-him-arrested-was-wrong


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 23, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Every year I read and teach the constitution with my Government Class and my US History Class.  It clearly states that an individual's rights cannot infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> That's why we have indecent exposure laws.  Now if you think a man in bikini panties and a bra on an airplane are not indecent, then there is no place to go from there.



I don't know what text  books you use or at what grade level you teach. Or perhaps you are just making an over generalized statement because of the nature of discourse on a bb such as this.  Nonetheless, the key word in your statement  is "rights" of others.  Meaning Constitutional rights.   The mere fact that the right to free speech is not unfettered doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The supreme court has certainly used a balancing test when finding certain limits to constitutional rights.  As always this is a tricky matter.  This particular court has been extremely protective of the first amendment finding it unconstitutional to stop certain protesters at funerals no matter how offensive their behavior is.

Some people think Huckleberry Finn is indecent.  Some people think purple hair is indecent. Does that mean that Hucklberry Finn should be banned from publication? Or that the sale of purple hair dye be made illegal?  



If a police officer thinks that purple hair is indecent on a public street must you obey the officer's order to wear a hat and cover it up?    Is it indecent for Miss America to wear a swimsuit when there is no swimming going on?

The Taliban don't like to see a woman with her face uncovered or a man without a beard.  They might kill you for that.  They consider themselves to be acting in accordance with Islamic Law.

We should all be careful not to take America down a slippery slope to totalitarianism - particularly when we are offended.  It is easy to protect the constitution when it is only an ideal it is a much different matter if in practice you don't like the results.


----------



## Talent312 (Jun 23, 2011)

We can belabor this issue to death, and it won't change the fact that in our society, while we may have agreed that what one does in one's own bedroom is none of our business, but in social settings, non-conformists are often shunned or cast-out simply becuz they fail to meet the norms of whatever group they may be in at the time.

"But I have rights," is a standard refrain. So?...  Sorry, its not the power of the State that matters, its the power our society delegates to individuals in certain situations.  Sorry, but when the those in power decide to use them to the benefit of the group, they will trump individual liberties every time.

A non-conformist's failure to adapt to his situation will always be his problem... unless the spotlight turns on us, for some reason.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 23, 2011)

Talent312 said:


> We can belabor this issue to death, and it won't change the fact that in our society, while we may have agreed that what one does in one's own bedroom is none of our business, but in social settings, non-conformists are often shunned or cast-out simply becuz they fail to meet the norms of whatever group they may be in at the time.
> 
> "But I have rights," is a standard refrain. So?...  Sorry, its not the power of the State that matters, its the power our society delegates to individuals in certain situations.  Sorry, but when the those in power decide to use them to the benefit of the group, they will trump individual liberties every time.
> 
> A non-conformist's failure to adapt to his situation will always be his problem... unless the spotlight turns on us, for some reason.



Sure non-conformists are not liked.  No problem.  The problem is government action against non-conformists.  That is why we have a constitution.  It isn't to protect joe blow from being disliked by john doe.  It is to protect joe blow from being thrown in jail by the government.  The very thing that distinguishes the United States from most nations on earth and one of the reasons we fought a revolutionary war.  We didn't like a king that could throw you in jail for wearing the wrong pants.  Most people found it offensive, wrong, and disgusting for some religious group to protest at military funerals.  The Supreme Court said our constitution protects the right of that group to protest no matter how many people think they are wrong.  Majority rule in all things is as bad a tyranny as the tyranny of a king.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 23, 2011)

Talent312 said:


> ...*There are people in this world who, while otherwise saintly, when sufficiently annoyed, will behave in ways that others interpret as hostile or threatening*.
> 
> Those who expect others to anticipate their needs thru intuition, osmosis or ESP, often act this way.  ... those with "anger management" issues are most at risk of losing their cool in stressful situations.


The first paragraph applies to myself and to everyone else I know.  It applies to everyone.  Even the most even-tempered of us lose our cool from time to time.

I agree with the second paragraph as well in that those who expect others to anticipate their needs or who have anger management issues in the first place are most likely going to lose their composure more frequently than the rest of us.  

But we all do it at one time or another.  We get tired or frustrated dealing with the same old "stuff" again and again.  The kids are cranky.  It's hot, it's humid.  The kids are hungry.  We are hungry.  We are sick or in pain.  The daily grind just wears us down.  Then we blow up.  Those who don't know us and see only the blow up may think that is how we are most of the time.  And we also run the risk of thinking that of others when the only thing we experience from a stranger is a rare blow up.  

Case in point.  I am usually a very calm, even-minded person.  I don't yell at people, especially strangers on a phone when I am trying to do business with them.  I was having an awesome day yesterday.  My son, dil and DGD just came into town.  The weather was beautiful.  Then I got a statement in the mail from a company that does my deceased FIL's lawn care.  Without going into detail, they had not posted a payment made more than a month ago and tried to blame me, the bank, the clearing house, everyone but themselves for the mistake.  And I lost it.  I got very LOUD with the person over the phone.  The rational observer part of my brain was listening to the emotional tantrum going on and wondered, "where did _that_ come from?!"  My over the top anger was a shock even to myself--and to my DH who was in the same room. It was completely out of character for me.  Thankfully, I was able to pull myself together quickly and end the conversation on a civil note with the company rep saying she would correct the problem.

I only bring up the incident as an illustration that we all lose our tempers and sometimes we never know what is going to trigger it and when it is going to happen.

I think we need to be more forgiving of one another instead of starting petitions, demanding insubstantial "rights" (save the posturing for things that really matter).  When we get so worked up over our "right" to express ourselves through clothing _in someone else's house_, we diminish our effectiveness to speak out for things that are of more import than passing fashion fads.  It's like crying "wolf."  It doesn't take long for people to stop listening to you.


----------



## laurac260 (Jun 23, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> The first paragraph applies to myself and to everyone else I know.  It applies to everyone.  Even the most even-tempered of us lose our cool from time to time.
> 
> I agree with the second paragraph as well in that those who expect others to anticipate their needs or who have anger management issues in the first place are most likely going to lose their composure more frequently than the rest of us.
> 
> ...



Rose, this was the most poignant, thoughtful, insightful thing I have read to date on TUG.  It sums up the situation with my husband that I mentioned before, completely.  I deliberately avoided replying to that part of the thread, because I didn't want to come across in that manner, the way you felt on the phone, because that was how I was feeling as I read some of the posts.  My husband, on that day, fell into the same category as you did the day with the lawn care.  I'm not referring to the "anger management" part, he is pretty even keeled, but he also deals with pain 24/7, so that lowers one's tolerance to stuff, even like the daily grind of life.  

 I not only fully agree with you, I am going to work on "practicing what you preached"  ..as a receiver and a giver.

Thank you for taking the time to post this.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 23, 2011)

How you behave in "someone's house" or other private facility is not a question of rights.  We should, however, demand our rights and very loudly when they are being trampled on or taken away from us by the government.  Otherwise we will lose them all.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 23, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> How you behave in "someone's house" or other private facility is not a question of rights.  We should, however, demand our rights and very loudly when they are being trampled on or taken away from us by the government.  Otherwise we will lose them all.



First you referred to being "thrown in jail" by the government. Now, its rights being taken away by the government. What are you referring to specifically? Who is being thrown in jail and what rights are being taken away by the government? How is the government germane to this discussion?


----------



## nightnurse613 (Jun 23, 2011)

I tried desperately not to respond to this thread but, I'm sorry it's too tempting. I thought the original objection was why did the pilot feel it necessary to remove this person because he interfered with the safe operation of the aircraft.  I guess I missed that answer.  Then we talked about decency in dress.  I fought this battle YEARS ago when I started wearing mini dresses (just like many of my high school friends). I don't wear mini dresses today (being past the age when I think I look good in them) and I see other women wearing them (and thinking they shouldn't) but I don't go up to them and tell them.  If I am not mistaken the rules of decency change every day. I am sorry if fashion or freedom of expression disgusts you (some of it disgusts me, too) but I don't think people should be arrested simply because an officer of the law uses their position of authority to make that determination (or is that what they mean when they say "the fashion police"?)


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 23, 2011)

nightnurse613 said:


> I tried desperately not to respond to this thread but, I'm sorry it's too tempting. I thought the original objection was why did the pilot feel it necessary to remove this person because he interfered with the safe operation of the aircraft.  I guess I missed that answer.  Then we talked about decency in dress.  I fought this battle YEARS ago when I started wearing mini dresses (just like many of my high school friends). I don't wear mini dresses today (being past the age when I think I look good in them) and I see other women wearing them (and thinking they shouldn't) but I don't go up to them and tell them.  If I am not mistaken the rules of decency change every day. I am sorry if fashion or freedom of expression disgusts you (some of it disgusts me, too) but I don't think people should be arrested simply because an officer of the law uses their position of authority to make that determination (or is that what they mean when they say "the fashion police"?)



Whooooa! Where and when was anyone arrested for what they were wearing? Pants on the ground boy was hauled in for resisting police officers. About a bright of a move as sticking your head into an alligators open mouth, further proving his complete lack of intelligence. 

Here's a suggeestion: if you are being questioned or detained by a police officer, you'd be wise to cooperate 100%. Not doing so is just plain stupid, and dangerous.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 23, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Whooooa! Where and when was anyone arrested for what they were wearing? Pants on the ground boy was hauled in for resisting police officers. About a bright of a move as sticking your head into an alligators open mouth, further proving his complete lack of intelligence.
> 
> Here's a suggeestion: if you are being questioned or detained by a police officer, you'd be wise to cooperate 100%. Not doing so is just plain stupid, and dangerous.



False Arrest is still False arrest no matter how you frame it...He wasn't resisting anything he was just trying to sit in his seat and get to his next destination

He wasn't questioned or detained by the police until after he was handcuffed and thrown off the plane


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 23, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> False Arrest is still False arrest no matter how you frame it...He wasn't resisting anything he was just trying to sit in his seat and get to his next destination
> 
> He wasn't questioned or detained by the police until after he was handcuffed and thrown off the plane





What, the hole was just too cozy, you can't wait to get back in?


----------



## bjones9942 (Jun 23, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Here's a suggeestion: if you are being questioned or detained by a police officer, you'd be wise to cooperate 100%. Not doing so is just plain stupid, and dangerous.



I'm sorry, but the BEST advise you will ever get if you find yourself being questioned by the police is to ask for an attorney and then shut your mouth until he/she arrives.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jun 23, 2011)

bjones9942 said:


> I'm sorry, but the BEST advise you will ever get if you find yourself being questioned by the police is to ask for an attorney and then shut your mouth until he/she arrives.



That depends on the scenario. If a cop stops me and is asking me questions that are not self implicating of anything unlawful, I am NOT going to say "I want an attorney".

 Examples? Too many to list, but here's one: Officer Fife: sir, we're looking for an auto similar to yours. Would you mind telling me where you're coming from?
Me: No, I'd like to speak with an attorney.

Nope. That's not going to be my reply. Obviously it depends on the situation.


----------



## tombo (Jun 23, 2011)

Here is a newspaper article explaining that he became a trespasser when the pilot revoked his right to be on the plane. He also was charged with resisiting arrest, battery of a police officer, and he has a prior outstanding arrest warrant for possession of majuana. 

Hmm a guy wearing baggy pants with his drawers showing has an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Could it be that you can actually judge a book by it's cover? Nahh, I am sure that Ride will feel that he was arrested for possession and didn't show up for court (forcing them to issue a warrant for his arrest) because of his baggy pants too. He has the right to smoke pot and not show up for court. He is not hurting anyone else after all....

https://www.baycitizen.org/crime/story/arrested-passenger-flight-considers/


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 23, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Whooooa! Where and when was anyone arrested for what they were wearing? Pants on the ground boy was hauled in for resisting police officers. About a bright of a move as sticking your head into an alligators open mouth, further proving his complete lack of intelligence.
> 
> Here's a suggeestion: if you are being questioned or detained by a police officer, you'd be wise to cooperate 100%. Not doing so is just plain stupid, and dangerous.



When is it proper to be stopped or worse yet "detained" by the police?   Can they do it for any reason that enters their mind or no reason at all?   Should you allow your house to be searched without a warrant?    Are you cooperating with the police when you demand a lawyer and refuse to speak until you get one?

These are difficult issues involving the basic rights of united states citizens provided by the constitution.  The constitution will not protect you unless you assert your rights.

The pilot and the police may have had zero right to throw that man from the plane then arrest him when he resisted their unlawful act.  They may have been totally in the wrong.  I simply don't know the facts by reading the newspaper and I certainly am not familiar with the specific laws or rules involved.  

The point is that I will not jump to the conclusion that the man was "stupid" or a "fool" for not complying.  Protecting your rights is not an easy thing.  It may turn out this man was completely wrong - or not.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 23, 2011)

Here's the actual facts Tombo

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=8198074

BTW: I am also against the prohibition of some drugs...Some, not all, if you look up the history of Marijuana and the illegal stereotyping and racism(Yup in this case it was racism) that caused it to become illegal....You'd be shocked


----------



## tombo (Jun 23, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Here's the actual facts Tombo
> 
> http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=8198074
> 
> BTW: I am also against the prohibition of some drugs...Some, not all, if you look up the history of Marijuana and the illegal stereotyping and racism(Yup in this case it was racism) that caused it to become illegal....You'd be shocked



Wow I am so glad to hear the "actual facts" from him at a press conference set up by him. I am surprised that there was no mention of him pulling his pants all the down when told to pull them up by the pilot. Oh well you can always believe 100% of what a person says at his press conference. I remember all of the truths Weiner recently told at his first press conference when he denied sending those pics of himself in his underwear and where he told everyone that his twitter account had been hacked...... Then there was Bill Clinton's press conference where he said he never had sex with that woman...Casey Anthony said Zanny the nanny kidnapped Kaylee.....John Edward's assistant said at his press conference that John Edward's illegitimate child was his.... Charlie Sheen is still WINNING... etc, etc, etc. Yes you have found the actual facts because history shows that the facts and only the facts come out at a press conference..............:hysterical:


----------



## tombo (Jun 23, 2011)

By the way all kidding aside he does seem like a nice guy. I wouldn't have minded sitting next to him if he would have pulled his pants up and kept them pulled up. In fact i would have loved to have talked college football with him on the flight.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 23, 2011)

tombo said:


> By the way all kidding aside he does seem like a nice guy. I wouldn't have minded sitting next to him if he would have pulled his pants up and kept them pulled up. In fact i would have loved to have talked college football with him on the flight.



Got to admit, he's not the smartest guy...he struggles a bit with the larger words...and misuses a couple....Plus, yah, if an officer is asking me for my boarding pass...i don't see any reason NOT to show it to him


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 23, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> Thank you for taking the time to post this.


You are welcome.  



nightnurse613 said:


> ...(or is that what they mean when they say "the fashion police"?)


Hope they never find me!


----------



## tombo (Jun 24, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Got to admit, he's not the smartest guy...he struggles a bit with the larger words...and misuses a couple....Plus, yah, if an officer is asking me for my boarding pass...i don't see any reason NOT to show it to him



I give you credit. There is no argument you won't tackle and no pot you won't stir. You have defended him relentlessly (against all reason in many instances) throughout this long thread and now when I make the first positive post about him you have to take the other side to create more debate. Suddenly the same guy who could do no wrong before is not smart, has little command of the English langage, and was totally in the wrong for not showing the police his boarding pass to the police. 

Do you wear flips flops with your baggy pants or do you just flip flop on the threads to keep an argument going?

You are what we describe around here as someone who will climb a tree to find an argument even though it is much easier to simply stand on the ground where everyone agrees.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 24, 2011)

tombo said:


> I give you credit. There is no argument you won't tackle and no pot you won't stir. You have defended him relentlessly (against all reason in many instances) throughout this long thread and now when I make the first positive post about him you have to take the other side to create more debate. Suddenly the same guy who could do no wrong before is not smart, has little command of the English langage, and was totally in the wrong for not showing the police his boarding pass to the police.
> 
> Do you wear flips flops with your baggy pants or do you just flip flop on the threads to keep an argument going?
> 
> You are what we describe around here as someone who will climb a tree to find an argument even though it is much easier to simply stand on the ground where everyone agrees.



I don't think he is switching sides in the discussion.  It is part of the discussion.  Does a person have to be bright or well spoken to have his right to dress as he wishes on a plane?  The main point as I see it is was the pilot correct in calling him out and ultimately throwing him off the plane for the way he dressed. EVERYTHING about this story starts with that single act.  That is the question that must be answered.  Can the pilot tell people to put on a sweater, polish their shoes, hide their hair, shave their beard?  What can the pilot do?   It all starts there.  The lawfulness of everything that happens afterwards is based on that single act. I see many disgusting looking and dressing people on planes all the time.  That is my opinion.  What I find disgusting someone else will praise.  What kind of power does the pilot have ?  Was this pilot wrong?  I think so.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 24, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> ...The main point as I see it is was the pilot correct in calling him out and ultimately throwing him off the plane for the way he dressed. EVERYTHING about this story starts with that single act.  That is the question that must be answered.  Can the pilot tell people to put on a sweater, polish their shoes, hide their hair, shave their beard?  What can the pilot do?   It all starts there.  The lawfulness of everything that happens afterwards is based on that single act....


As I understand it, the pilot was not evicting the man for his choice of attire.  He was evicting him for not obeying and for being defiant to the direct order of a crew member, the flight attendant.  The pilot's actions were based on protecting his crew members first and foremost.  As far as I know, the pilot could have cared less about the man's clothing.


----------



## Elan (Jun 24, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I don't think he is switching sides in the discussion.  It is part of the discussion.  Does a person have to be bright or well spoken to have his right to dress as he wishes on a plane?  The main point as I see it is was the pilot correct in calling him out and ultimately throwing him off the plane for the way he dressed. EVERYTHING about this story starts with that single act.  That is the question that must be answered.  Can the pilot tell people to put on a sweater, polish their shoes, hide their hair, shave their beard?  What can the pilot do?   It all starts there.  The lawfulness of everything that happens afterwards is based on that single act. I see many disgusting looking and dressing people on planes all the time.  That is my opinion.  What I find disgusting someone else will praise.  What kind of power does the pilot have ?  Was this pilot wrong?  I think so.



  Pretty much my thoughts as well.  While I agree it was within the airlines rights to remove the guy from the plane once he failed to comply, the larger question is whether it should have ever escalated to the point where that was necessary.  It seems to me, based on the limited data at hand, that this could have all been avoided had the crew backed off once the guy sat in his seat.  I doubt his "sagging" would have even been noticeable at that point.  Again based on limited data, I'd guess this incident was a direct result of an over zealous crew.  I reserve the right to change my mind based on any additional information that may be released.


----------



## Pens_Fan (Jun 24, 2011)

Just pull your damn pants up.


----------



## Patri (Jun 24, 2011)

Elan said:


> Pretty much my thoughts as well.  While I agree it was within the airlines rights to remove the guy from the plane once he failed to comply, the larger question is whether it should have ever escalated to the point where that was necessary.  It seems to me, based on the limited data at hand, that this could have all been avoided had the crew backed off once the guy sat in his seat.  I doubt his "sagging" would have even been noticeable at that point.  Again based on limited data, I'd guess this incident was a direct result of an over zealous crew.  I reserve the right to change my mind based on any additional information that may be released.



Perhaps their thought was 'If he is defiant on this, he may become defiant on something else midair, and then we could have a major problem.'


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 24, 2011)

Patri said:


> Perhaps their thought was 'If he is defiant on this, he may become defiant on something else midair, and then we could have a major problem.'



The thing is, when he sat down, he pulled up his pants...he was carrying two bags while getting on the plane so when they requested, he wasn't being defiant, he was just trying to put his bags down first

I don't know why when the officer asked for his boarding pass he didn't hand it over...But i'm not sure if thats enough to throw a man in jail for


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jun 24, 2011)

The airport personnel are profiling persons who may cause a situation. Mental ill persons (or temporarly persons under severe stress) can appear normal to the vast majority of the general population but he must have triggered more than one person's "spider sense". The decision was to error on the side of caution. 
Reflection days later and coached by his lawyer, this very well might not be the same perception given off to those airport persons days as then.


----------



## Elan (Jun 24, 2011)

Patri said:


> Perhaps their thought was 'If he is defiant on this, he may become defiant on something else midair, and then we could have a major problem.'



  Undoubtedly, that's the airline's spin.   But the idiocy of that is that anyone can become defiant mid-flight.   I'd be far more concerned with the first class passenger into his 4th Bloody Mary becoming defiant than I would saggy pants guy.  Furthermore, if that's the criteria for determining possible mid-flight defiance, then why aren't all passengers subjected to some sort of similar psychological test?  Why isn't everyone harrassed to see if they comply or defy?  

  As I said, there's more to come from this.  Perhaps there's video showing this passenger being a total a-hole to the flight crew, in which case I'd change my stance.  But based on what I've seen thus far, I'd say that isn't what transpired.


----------



## fillde (Jun 24, 2011)

I must say I was totally in the pilots and the airlines corner for the incident with the pants.
But then the airline and pilot(or stewards) allow the man dressed in drag on the plane. Where is the consistency? Where are the laws? Surely  the man in drag was observed and it was determined not to stop him.
Honestly, the airlines have to come up with uniform rules and enforce them. 
If not, many passengers and lawyers are going to be making money.
By the way, how did Mr Drag get past the TSA.


----------



## tombo (Jun 24, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I don't think he is switching sides in the discussion.  It is part of the discussion.  .



Ride said that everything transpired because of the sagging pants and he should not have had to show his boarding pass, be questioned, or have had to leave the plane. Ride has stated that he was being harrassed for his attire and should have been left alone. Then in response to me he states that the man should have given his boarding pass to the officer when asked. 

It is hard to portray him as a great guy for standing up to authority and refusing to pull up his pants because the guy did nothing wrong only to later say well he did wrong by not capitulating to the overbearing personal rights robbing police who would not have asked him for his boarding pass if he had not worn saggy pants. That is a flip flop IMO.


----------



## tombo (Jun 24, 2011)

Elan said:


> As I said, there's more to come from this.  Perhaps there's video showing this passenger being a total a-hole to the flight crew, in which case I'd change my stance.  But based on what I've seen thus far, I'd say that isn't what transpired.



The only video I have seen is from after the officers came on board. He was contrite in that video. When being asked to leave the plane by police it is much harder to be an a$$ than it is to a stewardess or a lone pilot. 

If he however previously pulled his pants ALL THE WAY DOWN as the articles state after being asked to pull them up by the flight crew, he was very defiant and should have been removed IMO.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 24, 2011)

tombo said:


> The only video I have seen is from after the officers came on board. He was contrite in that video. When being asked to leave the plane by police it is much harder to be an a$$ than it is to a stewardess or a lone pilot.
> 
> If he however previously pulled his pants ALL THE WAY DOWN as the articles state after being asked to pull them up by the flight crew, he was very defiant and should have been removed IMO.



A statement has come out from him that actually he pulled them completely up once he sat down...Also, you can hear him saying in the iphone video that the 'issue is solved' this would seem to coincide with the story of the pants being pulled up...

I still believe he should have presented his boarding ticket when asked, i never said he shouldn't have presented his boarding pass, i wasn't aware of that issue till i saw his interview...But still don't believe it should have gotten to the point where he was asked...he sat down pulled up his pants and was still harassed


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 24, 2011)

Only a thread related to pajama pants, and also includes a discussion with Ride, can go on for over 200 posts!   :hysterical:


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 24, 2011)

tombo said:


> The only video I have seen is from after the officers came on board. He was contrite in that video. When being asked to leave the plane by police it is much harder to be an a$$ than it is to a stewardess or a lone pilot.
> 
> If he however previously pulled his pants ALL THE WAY DOWN as the articles state after being asked to pull them up, he was very defiant and should have been removed.



This gets down to the basic question.  Why was he TOLD to pull his pants up?  His private parts were not exposed and he did not pose a threat to the plane.  I think there is only one answer.  The pilot didn't like the way he looked and thought it was his right to ORDER him to pull up his pants to a point where the pilot was satisfied.     Wouldn't you get angry if a pilot selected you out of every misfit and oddly clothed persons on a plane?

What about a really skimpy dress on a women with alot of flesh showing?  Should the pilot say "Cover up, your indecent, you look like a whore"?  How would that go down?

  Where does it end?  What are the limits to what a pilot can tell a passenger to do?

Where is the "they are taking away our liberty" crowd now?  I know your here.  Maybe you don't know what liberty is.


----------



## Elan (Jun 24, 2011)

tombo said:


> The only video I have seen is from after the officers came on board. He was contrite in that video. When being asked to leave the plane by police it is much harder to be an a$$ than it is to a stewardess or a lone pilot.
> 
> If he however previously pulled his pants ALL THE WAY DOWN as the articles state after being asked to pull them up by the flight crew, he was very defiant and should have been removed IMO.



  If he was confrontational (not to be confused with not being fully cooperative) or if he ever pulled his pants down, then he got what he deserved.  However, if that were the case, I'd think this guy would want out of the public eye as quickly as possible -- not secure an attorney and do interviews.   I could be wrong.   Stranger things have happened.


----------



## tombo (Jun 24, 2011)

Elan said:


> If he was confrontational (not to be confused with not being fully cooperative) or if he ever pulled his pants down, then he got what he deserved.  However, if that were the case, I'd think this guy would want out of the public eye as quickly as possible -- not secure an attorney and do interviews.   I could be wrong.   Stranger things have happened.



Here is the ORIGINAL article that started this thread from CBS San Fransisco:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...r-bailed-out-after-baggy-pants-arrest-at-sfo/

Here is a Quote form the article:
"Marman, who was boarding Flight 488 to Albuquerque, N.M., was instructed by airline crew members several times to pull up his pants to cover his underwear, both before he boarded and on the plane, according to San Francisco police Sgt. Michael Rodriguez.

Marman allegedly refused to pull up his pants and when he sat in his seat, he pulled them all the way down, Rodriguez said."


He was allegedly asked SEVERAL TIMES to pull his pants up before and after he boarded the plane. He allegedly pulled them all the way down. That is someone who repeatedly said _ _ _ _ you to the flight crew. He deserved to be booted from the flight.

A:  Do I believe that the flight crew has NEVER encountered a passenger with sagging pants and that they decided to throw him off and treat him badly because they had never seen such a thing, 

or B. do I believe that they have encountered many passengers with saggy pants who unlike Maraduke simply complied with the flight crew's requests to pull up their pants? 

I go with scenario B since it is much more plausible. I can't believe he is the first passenger (or first Black passenger) they have encountered with similar attire where the pants sag and the underwear is exposed. The odds are slim to none that a passenger has not been on their flight before with sagging pants, in fact they have probably had several others this week.  The difference has to be his attitude, otherwise they would be throwing saggy pants off of planes weekly if not daily..


----------



## scrapngen (Jun 24, 2011)

Multiple issues being questioned here that make the various arguments confusing:

1) It was the flight attendant - not the pilot - who had issue with the man. (whether it was his saggy pants, or not showing his boarding pass, judgement call, etc.  is a matter for argument)  The pilot only got involved afterward because it is his crew and everyone's safety and ultimately threw him off. 

2) Man in women's underwear - different plane/different crew. How did he get through TSA?? Well, he isn't hiding anything, is he???  (again, why or why not hassled is a matter for argument, but different people involved, and he does not seem belligerent or argumentative?) 

3) Why "saggy pants" guy has press conference and lawyers and seems respectful and well "coached"?  This is a college football player - football money involved, obviously. You don't seriously believe he decided to argue this and hire a lawyer on his own to protest his rights, do you? 

I'll let you all continue to debate the rest (individual's rights, profiling, indecency laws, safety issues, public vs. private places, race card,  etc. ) - as it is a tangled web indeed in this case! 

Oh, one last thought.... most people who choose to protest in some way often expect and sometimes even want the publicity of an arrest to make their point. I don't think this guy was trying to make a point or take a stance - he just didn't realise what he was doing might be improper for his location...and having just attended a funeral for a close friend, he probably should ultimately get a pass for his behavior. However, common sense and manners should dictate how to respond to requests from authority. (in this case the flight attendant) Unfortunately, many people don't realise that a flight attendant is more than just a servant there to provide drinks. :annoyed:


----------



## pjrose (Jun 24, 2011)

ace2000 said:


> Only a thread related to pajama pants, and also includes a discussion with Ride, can go on for over 200 posts!   :hysterical:



Actually I had expected this thread to be closed long before now - congrats to everyone who is discussing instead of attacking!


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 24, 2011)

*What about exposed belly fat  on a plane?*



tombo said:


> Here is the ORIGINAL article that started this thread from CBS San Fransisco:
> http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...r-bailed-out-after-baggy-pants-arrest-at-sfo/
> 
> Here is a Quote form the article:
> ...



Once again, why did they tell him to pull his pants up because his underwear was showing?  Why is that a problem?   I have seen MANY and I mean MANY overweight people get on a plane with their belly's partially exposed as well as their undershirt as their belly pops out over their pants.  Never have I seen any one of these people told to pull up their pants and cover their belly.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 24, 2011)

scrapngen said:


> Multiple issues being questioned here that make the various arguments confusing:
> 
> 1) It was the flight attendant - not the pilot - who had issue with the man. (whether it was his saggy pants, or not showing his boarding pass, judgement call, etc.  is a matter for argument)  The pilot only got involved afterward because it is his crew and everyone's safety and ultimately threw him off.
> 
> ...


----------



## tombo (Jun 24, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Once again, why did they tell him to pull his pants up because his underwear was showing?  Why is that a problem?   I have seen MANY and I mean MANY overweight people get on a plane with their belly's partially exposed as well as their undershirt as their belly pops out over their pants.  Never have I seen any one of these people told to pull up their pants and cover their belly.




If the man was asked to pull his shirt down and he instead took his shirt off, that is unacceptable IMO.

If a man pulls his pants all the way down in front of your wife or daughter even though he is wearing boxers and that doesn't bother you, you are a better man than me.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 25, 2011)

*Flying in a pressure cooker - surprised not more incidents*



tombo said:


> If the man was asked to pull his shirt down and he instead took his shirt off, that is unacceptable IMO.
> 
> If a man pulls his pants all the way down in front of your wife or daughter even though he is wearing boxers and that doesn't bother you, you are a better man than me.



:hysterical: :hysterical: I get what you are saying.  I will say this much and hope that there are people who can agree:

Flying has become a horrible experience.  We are charged too much and generally treated poorly by the airlines and the TSA.  Planes are packed because there are less flights. My experience is that planes are dirtier and more things from bathrooms to entertainment systems often don't work. Everyone from flight crews to passengers are under stress. I recently took two transatlantic flights on BA and BOTH times the entertainment systems did not work.  These are long flights with nothing to keep you occupied while you are served drinks without snacks, and "meals" that are gross.   Flying is an A-1 pressure cooker.   I am surprised that there are not more reported "incidents" of all kinds.


----------



## Pens_Fan (Jun 25, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> What about a really skimpy dress on a women with alot of flesh showing?  Should the pilot say "Cover up, your indecent, you look like a whore"?  How would that go down?



You mean like this

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20638...ople/t/thrown-plane-outfit-deemed-too-skimpy/

or this

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/06/news/fortune500/southwest_shirt/index.htm

It's not just "Pants on the Ground" guy.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 25, 2011)

Pens_Fan said:


> You mean like this
> 
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20638...ople/t/thrown-plane-outfit-deemed-too-skimpy/
> 
> ...



I read both links.  The first woman with the short skirt said she got on the plane for the return flight (no time to change) and was complimented by an attendant for her dress.  At a minimum, you have a very arbitrary situation.  If the airline has a code they need to publish it. If they don't have a code, they need one.


----------



## scrapngen (Jun 25, 2011)

Pens_Fan said:


> You mean like this
> 
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20638...ople/t/thrown-plane-outfit-deemed-too-skimpy/
> 
> ...



Here's my take on the woman in the first link: while the picture shows her seemingly covered appropriately, take a closer look at that skirt. It is pulled down extremely far, but the top of the skirt is hidden by the shirt. It is still very short, altho reasonable.  If she had been wearing it in a more normal way - even just at her hips, it would be EXTREMELY short, and I bet did not hide her underwear. She said she was asked to pull the skirt down - so my assumption seems valid. Again, the top could have been more risque when she actually arrived at the plane...

Offensive shirts directed at political parties could be seen as inflammatory, especially with all the concern about terrorism.


----------



## tombo (Jun 25, 2011)

Pens_Fan said:


> You mean like this
> 
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20638...ople/t/thrown-plane-outfit-deemed-too-skimpy/
> 
> ...



I love the clip from the woman with the short skirt where she is on national TV showing America that her skirt was not too short. Her mom says that if if was inappropriate she would have told her not to wear it. The young woman is a waitress at Hooters, so if the outfit she wears to work doesn't bother her mom, I doubt there are many that would.

To better illustrate her point she stands to show that her skirt is not too short and that Southwest was out of bounds. However when she sits down you can clearly see her white panties before the camera cuts away. Duhh. She showed her underdrawers on national television while trying to prove that her skirt was long enough to cover all "the right spots" as Southwest termed it.  If I am on the jury and am shown that tape Southwest doesn't owe her a penny.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jun 25, 2011)

tombo said:


> I love the clip from the woman with the short skirt where she is on national TV showing America that her skirt was not too short.



Saw the panties, too, when she sat down. And I doubt she was wearing the midsleve covertop over her tanktop. San Jose to/fro PHX? Hot weather locations. Plus, with the midsleeve covertop on, she was too top-heavy in appearance on her - she is attracting herself to men, does not dress for comfort or modestly. IMHO.


----------

