It does not come down to what just any random person said about not eathing peanuts. When you are a passanger on a plane you do as instructed by the cabin crew when that instruction is for your safety or the safety of other passengers. The crew are incharge of you and the other passengers. In law the Captain or commmander of the aircraft can give lawful commands to passengers for the safety of the air craft and other passengers, failure to follow those commands has legal consequences. Maybe in future the captain should make the anouncement if that was not done in this case, and the passenger prosecuted.
It does not come down to what just any random person said about not eathing peanuts. When you are a passanger on a plane you do as instructed by the cabin crew when that instruction is for your safety or the safety of other passengers..
Which is why I responded to the comment about the comment from a fellow passenger and said nothing of the instructions from the cabin crew.
I wonder how many people still try to use electronic equipment during take off and landing because they don't believe that it will have a negative impact on the plane's performance?
Her mother Katy Platten, 30, from West Bergholt, Essex, said she wanted to warn future air passengers that people with nut allergies can suffer even if they do not eat them.
I think the BIB is the crux of the matter. How many allergy stories have we seen about allergy sufferers:
Having an adverse reaction because they had inadvertently eaten something with nuts in - Loads
Having an adverse reaction because they had were in the same room as nuts - Err, one (now)
Unless you have links to someone with a severe allergy (as I keep saying) or the media is full of stories about all of the possible dangers how are people to know the difference between facts and hyperbole?
I think the BIB is the crux of the matter. How many allergy stories have we seen about allergy sufferers:
Having an adverse reaction because they had inadvertently eaten something with nuts in - Loads
Having an adverse reaction because they had were in the same room as nuts - Err, one (now)
Unless you have links to someone with a severe allergy (as I keep saying) or the media is full of stories about all of the possible dangers how are people to know the difference between facts and hyperbole?
I don't know anyone with a nut allergy. This is certainly not the first time it's happened? There's a mountain of information on the internet, including scientific papers? This has been a practice on flights for years now, because of the dangers of peanut dust,? Said many times so far on this thread, dust. Some airlines don't have peanuts at all. Yet you thought they were spouting hyberbole?
What hyperbole stories have there been in the press about allergies. I'm struggling with that one. Are allergies imaginary to you?
I don't know anyone with a nut allergy. This is certainly not the first time it's happened? There's a mountain of information on the internet, including scientific papers? This has been a practice on flights for years now, because of the dangers of peanut dust,? Said many times so far on this thread, dust. Some airlines don't have peanuts at all. Yet you thought they were spouting hyberbole?
What hyperbole stories have there been in the press about allergies. I'm struggling with that one. Are allergies imaginary to you?
Dust, dust, dust .... and how many stories have there been, before this thread, about peanut dust affecting someone in the same room?
There might be a "mountain of information on the internet" about peanut allergies however unless there is a reason to look at it would people normally seek it out?
Until I read the newspaper article I would not have considered a open packet of peanuts to be a risk to someone several feet away from me unless the contents came into contact with them. Peanuts are not exactly a vapour or liquid which could travel over distance, the dust is not something that I would even have considered.
As for hyperbole, it could also be called "scare mongering" which certain papers seem to like doing, be it "Bird Flu epidemics", "Dangerously hot weather" or "Arctic weather and ten foot drifts of snow on the way", "Creeping Islamification" etc, etc.
Well, that brings the score to two although, to be fair, I don't often visit local news sites in Denver, Colorado (USA).
Surprisingly enough, now that I have actually had reason to look, there is entire website dedicated to peanut allergies - PeanutAllergy.com, though I doubt I'll be looking at it any further.
Dust, dust, dust .... and how many stories have there been, before this thread, about peanut dust affecting someone in the same room?
There might be a "mountain of information on the internet" about peanut allergies however unless there is a reason to look at it would people normally seek it out?
Until I read the newspaper article I would not have considered a open packet of peanuts to be a risk to someone several feet away from me unless the contents came into contact with them. Peanuts are not exactly a vapour or liquid which could travel over distance, the dust is not something that I would even have considered.
As for hyperbole, it could also be called "scare mongering" which certain papers seem to like doing, be it "Bird Flu epidemics", "Dangerously hot weather" or "Arctic weather and ten foot drifts of snow on the way", "Creeping Islamification" etc, etc.
Maybe before making uninformed comments on forums, then continuing to dismiss or mock any real facts? Chuck in sidelining and that's about it. As for scare mongering, what has that to do with anyone's allergy?
Which is why I responded to the comment about the comment from a fellow passenger and said nothing of the instructions from the cabin crew.
I wonder how many people still try to use electronic equipment during take off and landing because they don't believe that it will have a negative impact on the plane's performance?
I wouldn't use electronics, but it won't have any effect on the plane.
Maybe before making uninformed comments on forums, then continuing to dismiss or mock any real facts? Chuck in sidelining and that's about it. As for scare mongering, what has that to do with anyone's allergy?
... and just which "uniformed comments" would they be?
I haven't actually dismissed or mocked "facts" just shown surprise over events covered in one (or two) newspaper article(s) about an incident.
Unless you have links to someone with a severe allergy I don't think it's unreasonable to think ...
"For crying out loud, how is my bag of peanuts going to effect someone halfway across the room?"
Physical contact, yes.
Someone breathing fumes on them, perhaps.
Particles travelling halfway across a room ...
Unlike cigarette smoke you can't see anything that might be dangerous.
Can't see anything there, just pointing out that unless you are in the know you wouldn't immediately think about the danger of peanut dust in the air just physical contact and perhaps being breathed upon.
... and just which "uniformed comments" would they be?
I haven't actually dismissed or mocked "facts" just shown surprise over events covered in one (or two) newspaper article(s) about an incident.
Can't see anything there, just pointing out that unless you are in the know you wouldn't immediately think about the danger of peanut dust in the air just physical contact and perhaps being breathed upon.
That's simply a comment about people ignoring being told what to do.
Do you think the airline was in the wrong to ban the passenger for ignoring three direct warnings?
Do you think the airline was in the wrong to ban the passenger for ignoring three direct warnings?
No, that's up to them.
The only comments I have made thus far have been about ignoring the other passenger's indirect warning.
However, initially not knowing about the threat posed by peanut dust at a distance, as opposed to direct contact with the item, I can understand his scepticism.
Of all the warnings, on various topics, people are given how many relate to actual dangers and how many are just to cover someone's arse in case someone decides to sue?
You'll seemingly come up with anything other than a simple admission of getting it wrong. Perhaps if I turned it into a wild red herring of a hypothetical scenario you'd be more on board with the notion.
Except I didn't get anything wrong. You are the one saying the guy is an arsehole for disregarding instructions, yet you would quite happily endanger aircraft security by starting a fight (or thinking about starting one, or starting one, or thinking about starting one, or starting one) - OK finally you confirm, you'd happily start one
Except I didn't get anything wrong. You are the one saying the guy is an arsehole for disregarding instructions, yet you would quite happily endanger aircraft security by starting a fight (or thinking about starting one, or starting one, or thinking about starting one, or starting one) - OK finally you confirm, you'd happily start one
The whole thing where you pretend my position changed multiple times when it never did once, that's the bit you got wrong. Solid tactic when you're losing, just lie your way out of it!
The whole thing where you pretend my position changed multiple times when it never did once, that's the bit you got wrong. Solid tactic when you're losing, just lie your way out of it!
No, you definitely backpedalled, then as soon as you realised you were caught out, went back and insisted your original position had never actually changed, so as not to lose credibility.
It's not lying, by the way, it's 100% factual and all there in text.
No, you definitely backpedalled, then as soon as you realised you were caught out, went back and insisted your original position had never actually changed, so as not to lose credibility.
It's not lying, by the way, it's 100% factual and all there in text.
I don't know what's more pathetic - bumping a thread after 4 days just to get the last word or making up baseless claims to try and win internet points. All rather sad really.
I don't know what's more pathetic - bumping a thread after 4 days just to get the last word or making up baseless claims to try and win internet points. All rather sad really.
^^^^^
That'll be worth a quote sometime in the future ;-):D
I don't know what's more pathetic - bumping a thread after 4 days just to get the last word or making up baseless claims to try and win internet points. All rather sad really.
There are "internet points"?? Against what can we redeem them?
Comments
Which is why I responded to the comment about the comment from a fellow passenger and said nothing of the instructions from the cabin crew.
I wonder how many people still try to use electronic equipment during take off and landing because they don't believe that it will have a negative impact on the plane's performance?
I think the BIB is the crux of the matter. How many allergy stories have we seen about allergy sufferers:
Having an adverse reaction because they had inadvertently eaten something with nuts in - Loads
Having an adverse reaction because they had were in the same room as nuts - Err, one (now)
Unless you have links to someone with a severe allergy (as I keep saying) or the media is full of stories about all of the possible dangers how are people to know the difference between facts and hyperbole?
I don't know anyone with a nut allergy. This is certainly not the first time it's happened? There's a mountain of information on the internet, including scientific papers? This has been a practice on flights for years now, because of the dangers of peanut dust,? Said many times so far on this thread, dust. Some airlines don't have peanuts at all. Yet you thought they were spouting hyberbole?
What hyperbole stories have there been in the press about allergies. I'm struggling with that one. Are allergies imaginary to you?
In your experience I take it? I hope you have nothing to do with air passenger safety as you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Dust, dust, dust .... and how many stories have there been, before this thread, about peanut dust affecting someone in the same room?
There might be a "mountain of information on the internet" about peanut allergies however unless there is a reason to look at it would people normally seek it out?
Until I read the newspaper article I would not have considered a open packet of peanuts to be a risk to someone several feet away from me unless the contents came into contact with them. Peanuts are not exactly a vapour or liquid which could travel over distance, the dust is not something that I would even have considered.
As for hyperbole, it could also be called "scare mongering" which certain papers seem to like doing, be it "Bird Flu epidemics", "Dangerously hot weather" or "Arctic weather and ten foot drifts of snow on the way", "Creeping Islamification" etc, etc.
Well there's this one.
Surprisingly enough, now that I have actually had reason to look, there is entire website dedicated to peanut allergies - PeanutAllergy.com, though I doubt I'll be looking at it any further.
They even have a forum with a dedicated section about airlines.
Maybe before making uninformed comments on forums, then continuing to dismiss or mock any real facts? Chuck in sidelining and that's about it. As for scare mongering, what has that to do with anyone's allergy?
I wouldn't use electronics, but it won't have any effect on the plane.
... and just which "uniformed comments" would they be?
I haven't actually dismissed or mocked "facts" just shown surprise over events covered in one (or two) newspaper article(s) about an incident.
Can't see anything there, just pointing out that unless you are in the know you wouldn't immediately think about the danger of peanut dust in the air just physical contact and perhaps being breathed upon.
That's simply a comment about people ignoring being told what to do.
No, that's up to them.
The only comments I have made thus far have been about ignoring the other passenger's indirect warning.
However, initially not knowing about the threat posed by peanut dust at a distance, as opposed to direct contact with the item, I can understand his scepticism.
Of all the warnings, on various topics, people are given how many relate to actual dangers and how many are just to cover someone's arse in case someone decides to sue?
Except I didn't get anything wrong. You are the one saying the guy is an arsehole for disregarding instructions, yet you would quite happily endanger aircraft security by starting a fight (or thinking about starting one, or starting one, or thinking about starting one, or starting one) - OK finally you confirm, you'd happily start one
Not to mention detracting attention away from what the guy had done, and onto the psycho who beat him up/started an on board fight.
Precisely, anne.
No, you definitely backpedalled, then as soon as you realised you were caught out, went back and insisted your original position had never actually changed, so as not to lose credibility.
It's not lying, by the way, it's 100% factual and all there in text.
Who am I proving it to ? - you're the only one I'm calling on it, and you already know what you wrote.
^^^^^
That'll be worth a quote sometime in the future ;-):D
Anyway - cool. Other guy can have the last word.
There are "internet points"?? Against what can we redeem them?
Internets and bowls of dicks.