Has Gob Posted This One Yet?

[Andrew D]

While you both ignore the publicly posted contract...

Ignore it?

I quoted it.

In a little white box and everything.

Of course, it isn't a US Airways contract.

But I quoted it anyway.

Quoted it.

In a little white box and everything.

[Andrew D]

You know what, I'm going to be honest and admit that she has a point, (if only she could do the same when confronted with the multiple disapproval of her "points")

If the airway has;

(i) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.

as a clause of travel, then they can exercise their rights as it is a contract of service.

But what does that contract term mean?

Other than "we don't like your clothing," what does it mean?

If the airline doesn't want people exposing their underwear, why not have a contract clause saying "you may not expose your underwear"?

Why do they have a contract clause saying "patently offensive"?

Patently to whom? Offensive to whom?

And "patently offensive"? You mean offensive is OK as long as it's not patently offensive? Patently offensive is verboten, but latently offensive is not a problem?

This reminds me of the days when people were being convicted of "the crime against nature".

That's what the statutes said: "the crime against nature".

When you, as a law-abiding citizen who wanted to know what was prohibited so that you could avoid doing it, went to the statute books, that's what you found: "the crime against nature".

What the hell is that?

Tree-spiking? Dumping oil in the river? Killing deer out of season?

It turns out that "the crime against nature" was homosexual sex. "The crime against nature" is something that has been found naturally occurring in every sexually reproducing species it has ever been looked for in.

"Patently offensive"?

What does that mean?

If you want to comply with the stated policy, what do you have to do? You want to play by the rules, so you try to figure out what the rules are. But the people making the rules don't want you to know.

Lovely.

[Gob]

Basically it's a catch all phrase which means, "we can choose who gets a seat, based on what we think of your clothing".

But I think most of us would have an idea of what may or may not offend.

This was a bad application of that rule, nothing more.

[Andrew D]

I agree with the "bad application" part.

But I do not agree with the "nothing more" part.

It's not just a bad application of a rule. It's a bad rule.

No, strike that. It's not a bad rule; it's not a rule at all.

The essential purpose of any prohibitory rule is to tell us what is prohibited.

Yes, we sometimes have to resort to generalities. Rule-makers cannot reasonably be expected to anticipate everything that might possibly ever happen.

But that should be the last resort, not the first refuge.

"Lewd, obscene, or patently offensive" tells us virtually nothing.

Basically it's a catch all phrase which means, "we can choose who gets a seat, based on what we think of your clothing".

Exactly.

And that is the problem.

[Andrew D]

What about a person who wears a swastika?

That's a symbol of totalitarian oppression.

Is it "patently offensive"?

What about the people who go around with ash smudges on their foreheads every spring?

That's a symbol of totalitarian oppression.

Is it "patently offensive"?

[Gob]

I do not think the airway would allow people wearing swastikas to board as it would be plainly offensive. It is recognised widely as the symbol of the Nazi regime, and the holocaust they committed.

Ash on the forehead though? Not with you on that one.

[Sean]

Catholics get wet ashes daubed on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday.

[rubato]

There exists a range of behavior which cannot be prohibited but which a reasonable person is entitled to ask someone else to refrain from. A lot of our public behavior needs to be negotiated between each other.

'Rule making' is inadequate.

yrs,
rubato

[@meric@nwom@n]

The passenger said Marman's sweatpants sagged to mid-thigh level and revealed skin-tight black underwear.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cri ... z1PkOONRL3

I roll my eyes at both sides of the equation. Seriously. Pull your goddamned pants up. All of you, young black men, overweight white females who stuff their whale sized asses into thongs designed for smaller women, blue collar men who show off 6 inches of crack when they bend over. No one really wants to look at that part of your anatomy or your underwear.

Airline personnel: Why the hell would you inconvenience a whole plane load of paying customers over this?

[The Hen]

I have no problems with morons that wear their pants down underneath their underwear.

I like to consider it a visible example of just how dumb they are compared to me.

[Lord Jim]

I roll my eyes at both sides of the equation. Seriously. Pull your goddamned pants up. All of you, young black men, overweight white females who stuff their whale sized asses into thongs designed for smaller women, blue collar men who show off 6 inches of crack when they bend over. No one really wants to look at that part of your anatomy or your underwear.

Airline personnel: Why the hell would you inconvenience a whole plane load of paying customers over this?

Sounds good to me...

[dales]

When I was growing up in the 1950's and 1960's airplane travel was considered a luxury and people dressed and acted accordingly. I had to wear suite and a tie, food was bought on actual china, and smoking and drinking by adults was the norm.

Now days, plane travel is a glorified Greyhound bus with wings.

People without manners, flight crew who are rude, and a smelly cramped seating not fit for civilized people.

Did I say "civilized"?

My bad, how far society as a whole has fallen.

A modern flight reflects all the ills of 21'st century manifested within a tiny aluminum tube at 35,000 feet.

What a sewer!

[Gob]

Six days before a college football player was arrested at San Francisco International Airport in a dispute that began when a US Airways employee asked him to pull up his sagging pants, a man who was wearing little but women's undergarments was allowed to fly the airline, a US Airways spokeswoman conceded Tuesday.

A photo of the scantily clad man was provided to The Chronicle by Jill Tarlow, a passenger on the June 9 flight from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to Phoenix. Tarlow said other passengers had complained to airline workers before the plane boarded, but that employees had ignored those complaints.

US Airways spokeswoman Valerie Wunder confirmed she'd received the photo before last week's incident in San Francisco and had spoken to Tarlow, but said employees had been correct not to ask the man to cover himself.

"We don't have a dress code policy," Wunder said. "Obviously, if their private parts are exposed, that's not appropriate. ... So if they're not exposing their private parts, they're allowed to fly."

So, does that mean Deshon Marman, the University of New Mexico player yanked from an Albuquerque-bound flight June 15 at SFO, was displaying his private parts when his pajama pants sagged to mid-thigh level?

Wunder declined to comment on the incident directly. Police have said only that Marman's boxer shorts were exposed, and his attorney said surveillance video would prove Marman's skin had not been visible.

Police arrested Marman, 20, who grew up in San Francisco, after he allegedly refused an US Airways employee's request to pull up his pants to keep his underwear from showing. Marman's later refusal to comply with the pilot's orders to get up from his seat led to his arrest on suspicion of trespassing, battery and resisting arrest, police said. The San Mateo County district attorney has not determined whether he will charge Marman.

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."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cri ... z1Q3EM5Zjq

[Long Run]

You just had to go there, Gob, didn't you.

[Lord Jim]

Six days before a college football player was arrested at San Francisco International Airport in a dispute that began when a US Airways employee asked him to pull up his sagging pants, a man who was wearing little but women's undergarments was allowed to fly the airline, a US Airways spokeswoman conceded Tuesday.

Joe never mentioned he was taking a trip...

I hope he had a good time...

[Scooter]

THAT is not a "drag queen".

THAT would be an affront to any self-respecting drag queen.

[Rick]

He didn't even attempt to hide his winky...

[Scooter]

His winky is probably the most feminine thing about that train wreck.

[Gob]

[Sue U]

OMG call Stacy and Clinton, stat!