Re: More problems for the stupid libs in California.

On Jul 8, 12:51 pm, WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungonce...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:26 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@xxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 5, 2:31 pm, WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungonce...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 5, 3:16 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 5, 1:40 pm, WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungonce...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 5, 2:21 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Good tradeoff? Well, for you it was - you fly on the
cheapest flight and don't care about service, comfort, safety, or
anything else other than itinerary.

I missed the part where he didn't care about safety.

He said, "When I fly for vacation, I go to one of the services and
choose the cheapest flight with an acceptable itinerary."

Uh, yeah...I know he said that. Did you know that doesn't equate to
"I don't care about safety"? Most leisure travelers do exactly the
same thing. That doesn't mean they don't care about safety either.
Most people I know are averse to dying in plane crashes.

That means, "I don't care on which type of plane I fly, or which
company maintains and operates those planes." Same thing as, "I don't
care about safety."

No, that means "Pricing is the only really substantial information I
have on which to base my booking decision." To interpret your way,
based on the assumption that an otherwise intelligent person doesn't
care about their own safety is silly in the extreme.

Ballllony. They tell you the expected equipment and the operator.
Statistics regarding both are freely available on the net. It means,
"an otherwise intelligent person doesn't care enough about their own
safety to do a little research."

Lee Jay

.

Relevant Pages