Article 32

[Garfield1966]

I chose Denis Miller merely as an example. Since I am but a mere mortal and not able to be every where at all times I must sadly rely on the media as one source of information. Denis Miller was an example of one individual who is against the idea of defining something as a hate crime. As to your example, a swastika painted anywhere in my opinion should be classified as a hate crime. It is, in my opinion, far different than painting a smiley face or some other such symbol. The fact that we have survived with out hate crime laws is irrelevant in my opinion. New laws are being passed every day that we have survived with out. Ask an African American if a burning Cross evokes the same emotions as a burning bag of feces left as a prank. My guess would be no. Any law or rule can be taken to it’s extreme interpretation. I do not feel that justifies not having the law. I have always believed that the punishment needs to fit the crime. Someone painting a swastika or burning a cross should receive a far harsher penalty than someone tagging a building or TPing a house on Halloween. If that is Orwellian thought police than so be it. I do not feel that it falls in that category.

As for aberrant behavior, the definition itself is a mater of perspective. I guess I have a wider definition of what I fine to be “normalâ€. I was a watching a show on TLC about body alteration (I know TV again) and they were talking about a guy called “Enigmaâ€, the Lizard guy and Cat guy. You would have to see them to understand. Suffice to say Lizard and Cat boy look the part with full body tattoos, cleft lip or tongue (cat and lizard respectively) whiskers, bumps of the eyes … you get the picture. That to me is aberrant behavior. What defines aberrant behavior though is not the point I was addressing. My point is, that regardless of what you or I find aberrant, that does not give us the right to ridicule or demean someone. Elvis was considered to be “aberrant†with his evil gyrations. So were the Beetles. Now we look at them as great artists ahead of their time. Lime green leisure suits were aberrant and thank god went away. Yes there are people who main stream society views as “out there†but as you pointed out earlier, do we want thought police or dress police out there telling us what we may and may not do to our selves. If your in-law wants to talk with a lisp, that’s his business. I do not feel he should be condemned or demeaned for it. How is the gay guy with the leather any different that the kid in the store with pierced eye brows, nose and lip? Or the hard core biker with a Santa clause beard, filthy jeans, chaps, rotten teeth and chew? All of it violated AA dress code and public contact requirements. If they choose to dress or act that way out side of work fine. If you come to work like that, you go home. If you put a noose in someones locker, you get canned, if you put a fake spider in a locker you get a good laugh (assuming they don’t have a heart attack and die) and a day off work un paid to contemplate your actions and figure out how not to get caught next time.

 

[flydcoop]

I hope that was a poor choice of phrase there, Garfield, and not implied towards me.

If it is implied towards me, I can account for my whereabouts and circumstances almost every X-Mas and New Year's.

Coop

SLT

[post="276420"][/post]​

someone sounds defensive

[post="276548"][/post]​

[/quote]


No, I'm merely saying that if someone is looking at my occurrences and posting innuendoes about them on a BB to discredit me, there might be a problem.

Not in an Article 32, tattle to MGMT sort of way, though. I've only dealt with one person where that would apply.

This person might only see a start date and jump to conclusions.

For instance, 25DEC2000, yes, I was on the sick list. I was also mid-sequence because I nearly blew out my ear drums.

I decided to help out my crew and make it to ORD so they could get a replacement F/A despite the fact that 3 was minimum on the 737. If I had have stayed in BDL, I could have gotten ground transport back to BOS.

Instead, I spent 4 lonely days in a Ramada Inn in Rosemont, ILL trying to get to the point that I could DHD back to BOS.

Also, ORD Medical was closed on X-Mas so I spent the next 6-8 months fighting the bills for the ER/MRI.

Luckily, in MA, blocked ears are an IOD. Thank-God for this event, I would have never realized I was missing 250+ hours of sick-time that did not transfer over from my ground jobs.

New Year's 2001 - Spent it with another F/A on our layover in SAN.

X-MAS 2001/New Year's 2002 - LAX layovers on the 777. The only reason I held that line (2 on/ 2 off). I never worked that airplane again. It was nice while it lasted.

X-MAS 2002 - my only misstep, I didn't clear the sick list in time for my A300 BOS trip. I tried to get the trip back but it was too late. I was supposed to fly with one of my best friends...25 hour layover in BOS.

New Year's 2003 - I had 4 days off, I might have my years off, it could have been 2002. I went to ATL and had to leave early due to a snowstorm. I knew it would ice up and I got out, unlike hundreds of DL paxs the next day.

X-MAS 2003 - 25 hour TPA layover, I looked forward to that all month. Great crew and we had a BLAST! I have pictures!

New Year's 2004 - I was in bed by 9:00pm. Talk to someone working the desk on 30DEC2003 about a certain STL F/A on a ORF layover and why she might have been off the entire month of January...not by choice. I would have rather been flying 120 hours than deal with what I had to deal with.

X-Mas 2004 - Sick as a dog for 2 weeks, my big event is to walk upstairs and take a bath. I go to the ER because I'm scared (I'm not getting any better). I clear on the 23rd and fly LAS turns the 24/25DEC.

New Year's 2005 - I have no idea, I probably flew a turn since that is all I've been bidding. Given the previous year's events, I'm probably in bed early.

So that's my story, other than X-MAS 2002 (where I screwed up), it's legitimate.

Don't jump to conclusions.

Coop

SLT

 

[flydcoop]

No N.,

I wouldn't do Art 32 unless there is no other avenue. I have a mouth and I use it...LOL!

Yes, we have a far different culture that you probably would not have embraced. Hell, I haven't embraced it! APFA seems to have the same culture.

I had a TWA captain this week who DESPISED AA. I felt bad for him. He will quit. He said he was ready to quit. You can tell he hates coming to work everyday.

He absolutely did not take it out on us though. On the contrary, he was very cool and backed us up.

I'm sad he might quit. He was quite personable but just can't fit into the "AA way".

I see it too often, the Captains are either deathly quiet or this side of bitter.

They are usually "deathly quiet".

I've dealt with this culture since 1995, I don't know anything different from this.

That's why the TWA way is so appealing to me. I've seen how TWA operates in STL.

I hate that TWA was not included during the RPA talks.

I do think that part of the problem is the larger you are, the more divided you are.

I am part of that problem but not without asking serious questions.

I am only razzing the schedulers because I think they do not see the F/A side. At the same time, F/As do not see the CS side.

AA seems to like it that way. 😉

Coop

SLT

Oh, this seems like the perfect time for a typical AA Art. 32 complaint..lol No, Coop, I do not regret retiring for one second. AA has a different "corporate culture" and I don't think I would have ever wanted to become meshed into the AA "way". I take great pride in having been both PanAm and TWA during their "glorious past". And I certainly hope "Garfield" isn't our old Garfield. We had the BEST schedulers. (even if we didn't always agree..lol) Roy, Vic, Terry, Mike, Flo and many others always looked for ways to not only protect the operation but work WITH the f/as. They were smart enough to know that in this day and age, most people fly certain flights and schedules for a reason. In STL (TWA), our turns were the most senior flts. For the commuters, late starts, early finishes. Our schedulers tried to work within the needs of the crew WHILE maintaining the integrity of the operation. It made sense that you would try not to reassign someone who flys turns to a 4 day trip...Chances are they would call off. We had different balancing rules and never had to put up with the trip extensions and reassignments like you all...but that was just our "inferior" CBA. Also, the smaller operation led to more personal exchanges with our schedulers. Our CBA would have not allowed the use of FSMs to keep from recalling f/as. Pay assignments to keep qualifications current, yes. And in all of my years of Union work, I only delt with one or two f/a write-ups..and they were "set-ups" during a Union raid. Like I said, different culture...I hope, for your sake, you are wrong about this summer.

[post="276550"][/post]​

 

[Ed Norton]

I chose Denis Miller merely as an example. Since I am but a mere mortal and not able to be every where at all times I must sadly rely on the media as one source of information. Denis Miller was an example of one individual who is against the idea of defining something as a hate crime. As to your example, a swastika painted anywhere in my opinion should be classified as a hate crime. It is, in my opinion, far different than painting a smiley face or some other such symbol. The fact that we have survived with out hate crime laws is irrelevant in my opinion. New laws are being passed every day that we have survived with out. Ask an African American if a burning Cross evokes the same emotions as a burning bag of feces left as a prank. My guess would be no. Any law or rule can be taken to it’s extreme interpretation. I do not feel that justifies not having the law. I have always believed that the punishment needs to fit the crime. Someone painting a swastika or burning a cross should receive a far harsher penalty than someone tagging a building or TPing a house on Halloween. If that is Orwellian thought police than so be it. I do not feel that it falls in that category.

[post="276674"][/post]​

We could go on and on with examples of what may or may not be a hate crime. I will once again attempt to make you see the erroneous thought process which has conjured this "feel good," "do something" emotionaly driven agenda.
Is a black man (oh no!...I used the "B" word!) who is murdered by another black man for wearing the wrong "color" any less dead than one murdered by a ku klux klucker for wearing the "wrong" skin? Would one murderer deserve more punishment than another? If one murderer yelled out "punkass mo' fo' " and the other yelled ni@@#r, as they opened fire on their respective victim, would one be considered hate speech and the other not? I guarantee that each killer yelled out their respective insult with the same amount of derision to achieve the intended effect. I will also dare say that "punkass mo' fo' comming from a rival gang member would evoke similar if not same emotions as the word ni@#$r coming from a klucker. I doubt there was any love in either case. Now how would we decide which of our two killers acted with more hate than the other? Call the Thought Police! Of course lead induced trauma trumps anything the victims may have been feeling at the time.
From what you write, you come across as a defenseless victim type who does not care what laws the government passes, as long as they make you feel safe.
Here's a quote from one of the unpoltically correct, evil, dead white guys who founded this nation.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

 

[Ed Norton]

I chose Denis Miller merely as an example. Since I am but a mere mortal and not able to be every where at all times I must sadly rely on the media as one source of information. Denis Miller was an example of one individual who is against the idea of defining something as a hate crime. As to your example, a swastika painted anywhere in my opinion should be classified as a hate crime. It is, in my opinion, far different than painting a smiley face or some other such symbol. The fact that we have survived with out hate crime laws is irrelevant in my opinion. New laws are being passed every day that we have survived with out. Ask an African American if a burning Cross evokes the same emotions as a burning bag of feces left as a prank. My guess would be no. Any law or rule can be taken to it’s extreme interpretation. I do not feel that justifies not having the law. I have always believed that the punishment needs to fit the crime. Someone painting a swastika or burning a cross should receive a far harsher penalty than someone tagging a building or TPing a house on Halloween. If that is Orwellian thought police than so be it. I do not feel that it falls in that category.

As for aberrant behavior, the definition itself is a mater of perspective. I guess I have a wider definition of what I fine to be “normalâ€. I was a watching a show on TLC about body alteration (I know TV again) and they were talking about a guy called “Enigmaâ€, the Lizard guy and Cat guy. You would have to see them to understand. Suffice to say Lizard and Cat boy look the part with full body tattoos, cleft lip or tongue (cat and lizard respectively) whiskers, bumps of the eyes … you get the picture. That to me is aberrant behavior. What defines aberrant behavior though is not the point I was addressing. My point is, that regardless of what you or I find aberrant, that does not give us the right to ridicule or demean someone. Elvis was considered to be “aberrant†with his evil gyrations. So were the Beetles. Now we look at them as great artists ahead of their time. Lime green leisure suits were aberrant and thank god went away. Yes there are people who main stream society views as “out there†but as you pointed out earlier, do we want thought police or dress police out there telling us what we may and may not do to our selves. If your in-law wants to talk with a lisp, that’s his business. I do not feel he should be condemned or demeaned for it. How is the gay guy with the leather any different that the kid in the store with pierced eye brows, nose and lip? Or the hard core biker with a Santa clause beard, filthy jeans, chaps, rotten teeth and chew? All of it violated AA dress code and public contact requirements. If they choose to dress or act that way out side of work fine. If you come to work like that, you go home. If you put a noose in someones locker, you get canned, if you put a fake spider in a locker you get a good laugh (assuming they don’t have a heart attack and die) and a day off work un paid to contemplate your actions and figure out how not to get caught next time.

[post="276674"][/post]​

As for aberrant behavior, the definition itself is a mater of perspective. I guess I have a wider definition of what I fine to be “normalâ€. I was a watching a show on TLC about body alteration (I know TV again) and they were talking about a guy called “Enigmaâ€, the Lizard guy and Cat guy. You would have to see them to understand. Suffice to say Lizard and Cat boy look the part with full body tattoos, cleft lip or tongue (cat and lizard respectively) whiskers, bumps of the eyes … you get the picture. That to me is aberrant behavior. What defines aberrant behavior though is not the point I was addressing. My point is, that regardless of what you or I find aberrant, that does not give us the right to ridicule or demean someone. Elvis was considered to be “aberrant†with his evil gyrations. So were the Beetles. Now we look at them as great artists ahead of their time. Lime green leisure suits were aberrant and thank god went away. Yes there are people who main stream society views as “out there†but as you pointed out earlier, do we want thought police or dress police out there telling us what we may and may not do to our selves. If your in-law wants to talk with a lisp, that’s his business. I do not feel he should be condemned or demeaned for it. How is the gay guy with the leather any different that the kid in the store with pierced eye brows, nose and lip? Or the hard core biker with a Santa clause beard, filthy jeans, chaps, rotten teeth and chew? All of it violated AA dress code and public contact requirements. If they choose to dress or act that way out side of work fine. If you come to work like that, you go home. If you put a noose in someones locker, you get canned, if you put a fake spider in a locker you get a good laugh (assuming they don’t have a heart attack and die) and a day off work un paid to contemplate your actions and figure out how not to get caught next time.

[post="276674"][/post]​

I don't think Elvis was considered an aberration. Sure, some people considered his gyrations offensive but people will always find something to be offended by. Isn't that right? Besides, he had a propper 🙂 hair cut and served in the Army. The Beatles are another story. I cannot deny their musical genius. However their music (along with the rest of the British invasion) provided the score and set the tone for the tumultuos 1960's. The nation was infested with long haired, dope smoking, hippy war protesters. The less affluent piers of these hippies who could not get a college deferment were sent off to die in places like Khe Sanh, Hue City and the Ashau Valley, protecting the interest of the ruling American capitalist elite. What was the thanks they got? They were spat upon and derided by the hippy vermin. What is my point? Today many of the hippy ilk hold positions of power in business and government. What they could not accomplish with their antics in the past, they are trying to force upon us through legislation,(ie. hate crime laws, etc)today.

Stop accusing anyone who does not agree with the radical gay agenda or any other PC agenda, of being insensitive or bigoted. Lighten up ! There is plenty to laugh about in life, sometimes our selves. Sometimes I think he TWA people are right when they say AA corporate culture is awash with uptight, self aggrandising, self serving anal retentive snobs, whiners and cry babies.

 

[Garfield1966]

Well Ed it's ben fun but I have to move on. We do not see eye to eye and never will. I have never played well with folks who use "aberant behavior" and "Gay Agenda". I do not agree with that mind set so I'd just as soon stop wasting my time.

 

[Ed Norton]

Well Ed it's ben fun but I have to move on. We do not see eye to eye and never will. I have never played well with folks who use "aberant behavior" and "Gay Agenda". I do not agree with that mind set so I'd just as soon stop wasting my time.

[post="276751"][/post]​

Gee, my sensibilities have been offended by you being so hateful and labeling me a "folk who use 'aberrant behavior' and 'Gay Agenda.'"
Sounds like you are flirting with a Rule 32 violation.
I think I will form a new diversity group. FABGAY (FOLK who use ABERRANT BEHAVIOR and GAY Agenda ). I will demand redress (no pun intended) and that you get some sensitivity training. Or at least some time out for you to reflect on why you were so callous.
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
Now you may run back to your corprate master. You could never defend your media spoon fed position anyway. Typical management lackey. :down: :down: :down: :down:

 

[TWAnr]

You could never defend your media spoon fed position anyway. Typical management lackey.

[post="276771"][/post]​

And you are a typical bigot.

 

[galleyguy4u2]

And you are a typical bigot.

[post="276801"][/post]​

Ditto
:jerry:

 

[Garfield1966]

Let’s see. You have called me a “company shillâ€, a “corporate lackey†and implied that as a member of management I am “uptight, self aggrandizing, self serving anal retentive snobs, whiners and cry babies.†How insulting me furthers your agenda is beyond me but I am guessing it does more to confirm what some already suspect. The “gay agenda†does not concern me half as much as the “heterosexual agenda†does. We are the scary ones.

I know facts just get in the way but if you will reread my post #43 in this thread you will see that I already addressed your murder issue

Whether or not you are offended is of little concern to me. You are a “folk†and you did use those terms. I did not intend to insult you. It has been my experience in dealing with people who use those labels that there is little point in arguing with them because their views (in my experience) will not change. And from our exchanges, you have done nothing to change that perception.

By the way. I would really consider trying to find a different acronym for you little club. FABGAY just does not flow very well.

I know I said I would not waste anymore time but I’ll be damned if I can pass up a good argument.

OH yea, one more thing while I am thinking of it. Did you find that reference in your contract that said you could call in sick to play golf?

 

[TonyB]

And you are a typical bigot.

[post="276801"][/post]​

I can see that Ed has a more traditional view on life but does that make him a bigot? What ever happened to an open exchange of ideas? Ed has simply stated his opinion and made his point. Garfield was at a loss for he never presented a valid argument to back his position, much like a company LACKEY, as Ed pointed out.
Ed is right, you people need to lighten up.

 

[Dr. Freud]

Gee, my sensibilities have been offended by you being so hateful and labeling me a "folk who use 'aberrant behavior' and 'Gay Agenda.'"
Sounds like you are flirting with a Rule 32 violation.
I think I will form a new diversity group. FABGAY (FOLK who use ABERRANT BEHAVIOR and GAY Agenda ). I will demand redress (no pun intended) and that you get some sensitivity training. Or at least some time out for you to reflect on why you were so callous.
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
Now you may run back to your corprate master. You could never defend your media spoon fed position anyway. Typical management lackey. :down: :down: :down: :down:

[post="276771"][/post]​

I am pulling my hair out! Can't anyone see the TONGUE IN CHEEK!
Waht is wrong with everyone? Have we lost our sense of humor?
Give me a break!!!!

 

[operaations]

I am pulling my hair out! Can't anyone see the TONGUE IN CHEEK!
Waht is wrong with everyone? Have we lost our sense of humor?
Give me a break!!!!

[post="276832"][/post]​

Tounge and cheek is one thing but when you start insulting individuals and peoples sexual preference is not funny. I had a brother that was a what you call hippy and he was taken from us by cancer. I am really offended by the way you generalize people with long hair from the 60's you need to lighten up.

 

[Dr. Freud]

Tounge and cheek is one thing but when you start insulting individuals and peoples sexual preference is not funny. I had a brother that was a what you call hippy and he was taken from us by cancer. I am really offended by the way you generalize people with long hair from the 60's you need to lighten up.

[post="276873"][/post]​

Since everyone else around here seems to be offended now I'm offended too.
I'm offended that you think I offended you. I think it was Ed Norton who offended Garfield, who in turn offended Ed who seems to have offended a couple of more posters and now I seem to have offended you. OK I'm confused now...but I'm still offended. :huh: :huh:

AGAIN! GIVE ME A BREAK!!

I hope no one else is offended.

 

[Garfield1966]

Offended? Please. For me to be offended I have to at least respect the individual I am conversing with. I do not know Ed, and he has leveled several insults. No, I am not offended.

Ed acts as though some ones lisp affects his life (if I am reading his post correctly). I work with gay, straight and everyone in-between. I could care less what they do in their spare time as long as they do not try and imposes it upon me. I am friends with some and despise. I have no problem labeling an individual as a pin head or similar. When you start labeling a group like “Screw schedulers†or such, then I have a problem and as far as I am concerned, when you start doing that you are stereotyping and you are a bigot. Perhaps not in the full blown manner of a klucker, but you do have issues. Before anyone goes off the deep end, in this case I am using “you†in the general sense, not referring to anyone specific.

Yes I am aware that his “FABGAY was “tongue and cheek†but the fact that he even made reference to it indicates his mind set. He seems to be of the mind set that “they†have and “agendaâ€. Who they are and what the agenda is has not been defined. Oh sorry, I miss quoted, it’s a “radical gay agendaâ€. LOL Yes yes, I remember now. They want to take over the world and make everyone gay. I wonder if it was created to stave off the radical hetero agenda. You know the one. It’s where the heteros take over the world and impose their beliefs on everyone. How laughable. What scares you so much about gays? Does allowing them to marry and enjoy the same rights as everyone else threaten your way of life? Get over it already. The 50% divorce ate for heteros is more damning than anything the gays can do.

Out of all the gay males I have met, the man in the picture is certainly not representative of them. I would not consider that a traditional view. He is probably no more reflective of the typical gay life stile than … hell, I have no idea what to compare it to. Regardless, even if it were, who cares? Just as the tattoo folks I referenced earlier. If that is their chosen life style, so be it. I would treat them just as any other individual I meet. I think it’s bizarre and I will not even claim to understand it.


If it does not affect you, get over it and move on.