Watch Passengers REFUSE To Give Up Their Seats for Kids on Planes
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
"...This whole thing happened after a mother on the plane didn't want to pay the extra cost to make sure her and her child were sitting next to each other..."
That's all I need to know. The mother is a lying sack of shit. The airline didn't put her in the wrong seat. They put her in the seat she paid for. She then tried to con someone else into subsidizing her costs.
Imagine that you have tickets to the Maple Leafs in the lower bowl, at the center ice line. Someone with nosebleed seats wants you to exchange seats with them, because they're holding an infant. If you say "Yes", are there any more like you at home?
This trend of onlookers filming people with their phones without having consent, then posting the guerrilla video online as monetized content needs to be stopped. When someone does that in my neighbourhood, they usually need to buy a new phone.
Oh I agree, but it's a Catch22, if no video evidence who do you believe?
If nothing happens, sure it stays off the internet. But come on, people are not normal anymore. Even the clown asking to trade seats. Something like this happen to me in the late 80's.
I no longer sit in those seats with the wall in front because they are narrow seats.
Grammar nazi note:
Her is the objective and possessive form of the English-language feminine pronoun she.
In the context above, 'she' would have been grammatically correct, because a feminine pronoun is being used in lieu of a noun. The red her could be replaced with her name, or any of a number of nouns which might be used to describe her. Examples include, but are not limited to:
lady
complainant
victim
Karen
respondent
lying sack of shit
and so forth.
Her might be used, but only if the sentence had been worded differently. If there had been a male 'co-parent' present, part of the sentence might have been:
...to make sure her child and partner were in adjoining seats. That sounds awkward, but it fits the grammatical rules. The phrase might best be expressed as:
... to make sure she and her child were sitting next to each other..."
Q: Why are you using the coloured text:
A: Because I don't expect every reader to read every word. Red is generally understood as no, and green as yes, by almost anyone old enough to walk, and by some other mammal species; a trained dog, for example. There's also one other reason which I'll mention right at the end.
Q: Why are you giving us grammar lessons:
A: Because most people write the same way they speak. It's also common among much of what they read in news articles, and especially in AI generated captions and headlines. I have a very specific screen cap I'll be adding just below, but I'm on my gaming computer now, and it's saved on another.
This reminds me of the song by Spinal Tap "Tonight We're Gonna Rock You Tonight".
Only the French routinely correct other people's oral sentence construction on a consistent basis, but it is a fact that if one yearns to mingle among intellectual company and be perceived as their peer, it would behoove one to make themself appear more literate than the accepted norm at one's local tavern.
Q: Why are you telling us in this thread?:
A: There are several reasons. I'm commenting on a grammatical error made by a podcaster. It is almost certain that the podcaster is NOT a member of TERB,so he is unlikely to be offended by constructive criticism. In the unlikely event that he IS a member of TERB, he likely wouldn't out himself because we know what he looks like, and his name is likely freely accessed on his YouTube channel, so nobody would do that, unless they don't know the difference between red and green, and no, I'm not making fun of colour-blind people.
Another reason is that @canada-man routinely posts video links to important topics, but most people would rather watch prank humour clips or YouTube shorts, and most of the time they end up watching the video at least part of twice before they remember that it's on a continuous play loop. canada-man's threads usually receive no replies, and they quickly move to the back pages on The Lounge, never to rise again.
Every word in every article in National Geographic magazine is proofread by multiple editors to ensure accuracy of the spelling and grammar. This is done because of the prestigious reputation of the periodical as a reliable source, and because many people in many countries learn how to read English from reading National Geographic. If you watch the National Spelling Bee when it airs on a sports station on a 'dead weekend' (after Football season, before Baseball season, and neither during the Playoffs of Basketball nor Hockey), something must be televised.
Year after year, the final group of contestants in the spelling bee is predominantly East Indian, and I don't doubt that all of them were reading National Geographic from the same age at which most North American children were having Dr. Seuss* read to them.
There are only two sports in India. Cricket, and spelling bee. If you can not defend a doosra on a slow pitch, you learn how to spell 'fackeltanz '.
*(the edited versions printed today, which remove the anti-semitic and racially stereotypical phrasing present in many of his earlier works, prior to his having established his brand with which most of us are familiar).
I'll bet that there's at least one idiot who didn't read any of this, but the terms anti-semitic and racially stereotypical in red colour and bold formatting caught his eye, and he clicked on the words, thinking that they were links. That's how advertising works, and that's why advertisers target almost all of their focus on younger demographic groups and people who think with their eyes.
Last edited:
I live in Cabbagetown, which is a colourful part of Toronto. There is an abundance of both architecturally unique single family homes, (usually sharing a common mid wall with one of their neighbours) as well as several drop-in shelters largely intended for the homeless and what are described by social agencies as "consumer survivors", and I don't think anyone who uses the term can define what it's supposed to mean. It's probably a catch-all for the demographic to which they condescend. The pre-newspeak terms might have included 'psychiatric outpatient',' junkie', 'vagrant', 'undesirable', 'bum', 'addict' 'poor', or Unnütze Esser, depending on where and when one lived. Now that's all rolled into one inclusive term. To me, 'consumer survivor' sounds like a polite term for 'cannibal' when there's two guys left on a desert island after all of the food has been eaten.
I'm sure there are many among the denzens of Cabbagetown and the nearby Cork Town, Moss Park and Regent Park who have outstanding warrants, and they are loathe to have their picture taken by anyone. Capturing cellphone video of strangers is also one of the most rude actions I can think of that is generally tolerated by society today. Part of the price of fame is having to deal with paparazzi, but a private citizen should not have to subject themselves to such a personal intrusion for the sake of a total stranger's whims, with neither consent in advance nor monetary compensation received, for a non-consensual liason. It's also not a good idea to provoke a 'street person', (the term this group would use to describe themselves), when the subject of one's intended video capture might gladly return to jail as the consequence of redressing a personal insult.
I walk through that area frequently, and often more than once per day. I can walk through the 'hood at 3 AM, without having to walk faster than normal or look over my shoulder. I'm on excellent terms with all of the locals who have any 'juice', regardless of their occupation.
Don Corleone said to Solozzo: "It makes no difference to me how another man makes his living...", and that is one of the lessons leading to success which can be learned from that film. Those of you who have seen Chinatown know what happens to 'nosy little kitty cats'.
Airlines do need to do something about the seating for kids though. Maybe require choosing your seats at time of booking so that kids are with their parents. Or have the system automatically assign them the shitty row at the back beside the washroom or something (the seats no one else actually pays to select in advance). At 24 hours out, you can change your seats if there are empty or unassigned ones, and usually for no cost for standard seats. This practice of bugging people to switch out their seats so the kid can sit with them has to stop, we need to get the plane loaded and out of there. And you notice it's never someone asking someone in that shitty last row beside the washroom to trade seats with their nice exit row seat.
^^^^^^^^^^
The woman 'gambled' that she could sit with her baby AND save some money, based on hunch that there would be unoccupied good seats. She then blamed the airline for her mistake. If you listen intently, you may hears the strains of 'the world's smallest violin', or you may see a gesture of same.
Individuals owe nothing to people who are inconvenienced by having made poor decisions involving gambling. Reimbursing them for their losses only applies to Governments and Banks.
The woman 'gambled' that she could sit with her baby AND save some money, based on hunch that there would be unoccupied good seats. She then blamed the airline for her mistake. If you listen intently, you may hears the strains of 'the world's smallest violin', or you may see a gesture of same.
Individuals owe nothing to people who are inconvenienced by having made poor decisions involving gambling. Reimbursing them for their losses only applies to Governments and Banks.
Yes, thats something that they just started doing when the internet came along lol
that sounds like something they should have done from day 1. Maybe an aisle seat or a window seat should cost a bit more than one in the middle. Limited 'bench' style seating could be an option for extra plus-sized passengers. A sealed crate in the cargo hold might appeal to college kids who want to 'do Europe' on the cheap. It might have the same cubic space as some Japanese hotel rooms.
Perhaps canada-man was referring specifically to Canadian airlines or some of the places on Donald Trump's list of 'shithole countries ', which might or might not include Canada.
Similar threads
