 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / August 2005New Continental international baggage policy
They done did it just like I said they would. Note that the policy is effective immediately, but is "waived" for tickets purchased through 9/7/05: http://www.continental.com/ Continental Airlines Announces Modifications to Excess Baggage Policy for International Travel HOUSTON, Aug. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL) today announced modifications in its free checked-bags policy for international travel, to reflect new weight limits of 50 lbs. (22 kg) each for up to two pieces. To assist customers with the transition to the new policy, Continental is waiving excess weight charges up to 70 lbs. (32 kg) each for up to two pieces of free checked baggage for international travel purchased through Sept. 6, 2005. Excess baggage charges will be applied for international travel purchased on or after Sept. 7. The new U.S. Department of Transportation-approved policy, which makes Continental's international checked baggage allowance consistent with its domestic baggage policy, is necessary to recoup increased handling and fuel costs associated with carrying heavier bags. It will apply unless prohibited by specific foreign governments for travel to/from their countries. Summary of Continental's International Free Checked Baggage Allowance a.. Two pieces of checked baggage free of charge: Maximum weight: 50 lbs. (22 kg) each; Maximum linear dimensions: 62 inches (157 cm) each b.. OnePass Elite members: Two pieces of free checked baggage up to a maximum weight of 70 lbs. (32 kg) each; Maximum linear dimensions: 62 inches (157 cm) each c.. BusinessFirst or First Class customers: Three pieces of free checked baggage up to a maximum weight of 70 lbs. (32 kg) each; Maximum linear dimensions: 62 inches (157 cm) each d.. Military passengers on tour: May check free of charge two duffel bags, sea bags or B-4 bags up to 70 lbs. (32 kg)/115 linear inches (292 cm). e.. Certain items may be carried free in lieu of one suitcase. See continental.com for details. f.. Checked baggage over 50 lbs. (22 kg) and not exceeding 70 lbs. (32 kg) will be charged at the rate of $25.00 per piece. > They done did it just like I said they would. Note that the policy is > effective immediately, but is "waived" for tickets purchased through 9/7/05: > > http://www.continental.com/ > > Summary of Continental's International Free Checked Baggage Allowance > b.. OnePass Elite members: Two pieces of free checked baggage up to > a maximum weight of 70 lbs. (32 kg) each; Maximum linear dimensions: 62 > inches (157 cm) each > c.. BusinessFirst or First Class customers: Three pieces of free > checked baggage up to a maximum weight of 70 lbs. (32 kg) each; Maximum > linear dimensions: 62 inches (157 cm) each The new policy is no different from the current one, on Elite members. Just fly 25K miles to be a Silver Elite, and you'll be able to check two bags of 70 lbs, in Pauper Class. Just another FF perk. -- Bob. > The new policy is no different from the current one, on Elite members. > Just fly 25K miles to be a Silver Elite, and you'll be able to check > two bags of 70 lbs, in Pauper Class. > > Just another FF perk. Or learn to pack lighter? <grin> If they really wanted to save fuel, they would make the baggage allotment a certain total maximum instead of a maximum per bag... They would save more fuel with one 80-lb bag than two 50-lbs ones... If I find myself going over the weight limit for a particular bag, I'm likely to just put the heavier items in my carry-on bag instead... Frankly I have better luck with my lead weights in my carry-on bag than when they get checked... If I check them, it's pretty much guaranteed that the bag will be opened by the TSA bozos... > > The new policy is no different from the current one, on Elite members. > > Just fly 25K miles to be a Silver Elite, and you'll be able to check [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or learn to pack lighter? <grin> Only those paupers who choose to fly Qantas or Singapore Air have to do that. > If they really wanted to save fuel, they would make the baggage allotment a > certain total maximum instead of a maximum per bag... They would save more > fuel with one 80-lb bag than two 50-lbs ones... Only Grummy can come up with that kind of wisdom that 80 is less than 100. I think you are trying to say something about the NET weight of passenger contents. One 80 lb bag whose empty weight is 15 lbs will hold 65 lbs. One 50 lb bag whose empty weight is 15 lbs can hold 35 lbs of content so two such bags can hold 70 lbs while having a TOTAL weight of 100 lbs. A NET difference of 20 lbs to gain a net content gain of 5 lbs. Some truth to that, but don't forget the baggage handlers claim bags over 50 lbs make them turn Quasimoto. What about sur-charging FATTIES over 200 lbs or refund midgets and anorexic flyers less than 100 lbs their underweight amounts? > If I find myself going over > the weight limit for a particular bag, I'm likely to just put the heavier > items in my carry-on bag instead... Like the carry-on limit of 7 kilo (15 lbs) on Qantas and Singapore Air, and British Air? My carry-on BAG weights 10 lbs empty. :-) What heavy stuff do you have that total less than 5 lbs? > Frankly I have better luck with my lead > weights in my carry-on bag than when they get checked... If I check them, > it's pretty much guaranteed that the bag will be opened by the TSA bozos... I think you have too much lead weight IN YOUR HEAD! :-) -- Bob. "Reef y" wrote in message news:1123566626.515706.31090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Only Grummy can come up with that kind of wisdom that 80 is less > than 100. > > I think you are trying to say something about the NET weight of > passenger contents. Well, I *thought* I was pretty clear on the matter, but it was late and my caffeine level was down, so maybe it wasn't clear enough... Yeah, I'm talking about the weight of the luggage contents minus the empty weight of the luggage... Over the years, I've pretty much determined that the old Navy seabags are damn close to the ideal piece of luggage for flying... They are very light but strong -- you can pack them very tight and easily get over 70 lbs in one... Since they are so light, that 70-lbs is nearly all luggage contents... There are no zippers to break -- they're pretty much foolproof... They lock easily with a padlock and are probably more secure than a lot of hard sided luggage with the typical cheapy locks... When we go on a trip, I always carry one folded up in one of the other pieces of luggage if we are not at the max bags per passenger limit... Thus, when Grace ends up buying things on the trip, we're not pressed for space to put those items... At worst, all the clothes get packed tightly into the seabag and it leaves the rigid frame luggage for whatever ended up being purchased... > Some truth to that, but don't forget the baggage handlers claim > bags over 50 lbs make them turn Quasimoto. If that was the case then they wouldn't allow any bags over 50 lbs at all... Since they allow bags up to 70 lbs for certain classes of service, it's pretty obvious that it is just a money issue... > What about sur-charging FATTIES over 200 lbs or refund midgets > and anorexic flyers less than 100 lbs their underweight amounts? 200 lbs does not necessarily make someone a 'fattie'... Regardless of your tendency for hyperbole, I wouldn't have a problem with the airlines charging by weight as long as they were equitable and charged the same for two 100-lb individuals as one 200-lb person... Of course, they should also include the baggage allotment into whatever figure they come up with... Since the FAA likes to use 170 lbs for the average person and since the airlines allow 100 lbs in checked baggage, that gives us an average of 270 lbs per passenger... Add in another 30 lbs for the carry-on allotment and you end up with 300 lbs per passenger... If I'm on a dive trip, I might be over that amount, but since I'm flying with Grace and Kaitlyn, the averages work out... On a nominal $400 flight, the 300-lb passenger+baggage would equate to $0.75 per lb... If the person weighed 220 or had 50-lbs extra baggage, he would pay an extra $37.50... If the 170-lb person could manage the flight without any luggage (checked or carry-on), the cost of the flight would decrease to $127.50... I wouldn't have a problem with that... One has to wonder if it might give women the incentive to pack more lightly... <ducking> > On a nominal $400 flight, the 300-lb passenger+baggage would > equate to $0.75 per lb... If the person weighed 220 or had > 50-lbs extra baggage, he would pay an extra $37.50... If the > 170-lb person could manage the flight without any luggage > (checked or carry-on), the cost of the flight would decrease to > $127.50... Ooops... Caffeine withdrawal alert !!! Change that to $1.33 per lb, thus the extra 50 lbs would equate to an extra $66.50 and the 170-lb person without any luggage would equate to $226.10... > "Reef y" wrote in message > news:1123566626.515706.31090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well, I *thought* I was pretty clear on the matter, but it was late and my > caffeine level was down, so maybe it wasn't clear enough... Caffeine affects only the weak of mind. No caffeine can keep me awake when I am ready to sleep, or make me more awake when I am awake. > > Some truth to that, but don't forget the baggage handlers claim > > bags over 50 lbs make them turn Quasimoto. > > If that was the case then they wouldn't allow any bags over 50 lbs at all... > Since they allow bags up to 70 lbs for certain classes of service, it's > pretty obvious that it is just a money issue... That was ONE of lines the airlines doled out. For 70 lbs they can always put two Quasimotos on it. > > What about sur-charging FATTIES over 200 lbs or refund midgets > > and anorexic flyers less than 100 lbs their underweight amounts? Actually I don't like that idea at all, except it would save a lot of dough for my wife to travel -- for which I pay. :-) > On a > nominal $400 flight, the 300-lb passenger+baggage would equate to > $0.75 per lb... Is that New math or Caffeine math? > If the person weighed 220 or had 50-lbs extra baggage, he would pay an > extra $37.50... If the 170-lb person could manage the flight without any > luggage (checked or carry-on), the cost of the flight would decrease to > $127.50... I wouldn't have a problem with that... One has to wonder if it > might give women the incentive to pack more lightly... <ducking> Is that Einstein's New and Improved General Theory of Relativity? 140 lbs checked bag plus 45 lbs carryon for CO Elite works for me. And since I am usually upgraded to First, 210 lbs are more than adequate. The only catch is that IF CO has to switch me to another airline for plane delay or schedule change reasons, then I could be up the creek with too many paddles. This happened when I came back from OZ, with the extra TWO 70 lb bags I had to leave at Cairns to fly to Sydney on Qantas, I was changed from a First Class flight on CO in LAX to a Pauper Class on Delta, and the Delta losers wouldn't honor my First Class ticket with CO, and saw coins jingling. :-) The Continental agent had to get into the act and fetched some big boxes to redistribute the excess weight in the 70 bags to those boxes ... Scuba engineers should have thought of non-metallic carriers for helium, to make 100 lbs of dive gear weigh 50 or less lbs. -- Bob. "Reefy" wrote in message news:1123607577.488851.44280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Caffeine affects only the weak of mind. No caffeine can keep me > awake when I am ready to sleep, or make me more awake when I am awake. Well, it sounds better than saying one had a cranial-finger-disconnect... <grin> Personally, I am quite addicted to my caffeine... If I go a day without it, I get the massive throbbing caffeine withdrawal headaches... But that's OK since it's a legal drug -- at least for now... <grin> > Actually I don't like that idea at all, except it would save a lot of > dough for my wife to travel -- for which I pay. :-) > Is that New math or Caffeine math? Caffeine-deprivation-math... Look at my next post... I caught it, but only after I had sent it... Unfortunately, there's not an USENET "oops" command... I've seen your typing on the newsgroup -- you're not immune to finger fumbles and such either... > Scuba engineers should have thought of non-metallic carriers > for helium, to make 100 lbs of dive gear weigh 50 or less lbs. But then you would get into the problem of the piece of baggage exceeding the alloted dimensions... Can't win for losing, I guess... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grumman-581" <grumman###@gmail.com> > Frankly I have better luck with my lead > weights in my carry-on bag than when they get checked... So why de f..k do you bring you're own weights? Marc > So why de f..k do you bring you're own weights? Depends upon where I'm going... If I'm going somewhere that I might not always be diving with a shop or boat, I might bring mine with me... >> So why de f..k do you bring you're own weights? > > Depends upon where I'm going... If I'm going somewhere that I might not > always be diving with a shop or boat, I might bring mine with me... Do you bring your own compressor too, or just full tanks? > Do you bring your own compressor too, or just full tanks? Nawh, tanks I rent... A few pounds of lead is no big deal... 70-80 lbs of tanks kind of eats into my baggage weight allowance... In Coz, I've only found a couple of shops that would even fill your own tanks, but the cost of renting vs just getting refills for your own tanks is not enough to justify carrying them with me... >> Do you bring your own compressor too, or just full tanks? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the cost of renting vs just getting refills for your own tanks is not > enough to justify carrying them with me... That's good. Fortunately you're not DIR. I always wondered how the DIR types carried their steel tanks on the planes with them, which they must do since they're usually not available to rent at many dive operations around the world and they wouldn't let surface considerations get in the way of doing it right. According to Lord High JJ himself, straight off the GUE website: (tell me if you see anywhere in there where aluminum tanks are allowed, and what's this about "prefer" and "available funds" when DIR supposedly isn't about personal preference and cost is for strokes?) Tanks The wide variety of tanks currently available provide the diver with numerous acceptable choices. Most cave divers prefer the larger volume lower pressure steel cylinders made by manufacturers like Pressed Steel and Faber. These tanks generally have a working pressure of 2,640psi. Many wreck divers still prefer the high pressure Genesis tanks (3,500psi) but this trend seems to be changing. The lower pressure tanks do not mandate high pressure to achieve a reasonable air supply but allow for higher volumes when necessary. Overpressurizing these tanks, for good or bad, has been a common practice in the cave community for more than two decades. The Genesis tanks are manufactured under a more precise system and the manufacturer warns that overpumping would be dangerous. The tank one chooses should depend on your size, your needs and your available funds. Do the cave and yourself a favor and really evaluate your needs. Most people will find that 95ft³ tanks are sufficient. These tanks are reasonably light and fairly priced. However, for longer dives or larger people 104's are a popular choice with the larger 121ft³ also gaining popularity. One should also be aware of the manner in which a tank was galvanized. Some manufactures spray galvanize their tanks which does not always provide a consistent coat leaving them more prone to rust. Other manufactures "hot dip galvanize" their tanks creating a more even coat that significantly reduces the risk of rusting. Dolphin tanks and Press Steel tanks are the most popular "hot dip" tanks on the market. The weight of the tanks, both full and empty, remains an important consideration for divers in all environments. The tanks must remain negative enough to prevent the diver from becoming positive during the dive. Some tanks are fine when full but the depletion of air leaves them too light to provide ample weight. One must insure that even empty tanks will not cause a rise to the surface. If necessary extra weight should be added to prevent the diver from floating. Indeed an emergency air sharing episode that depleted most or all of the divers air could cause them to float to the surface unintentionally, ignoring hours of decompression. One may offset this problem with a conventional weight belt or even more preferably with weight placed behind the backplate where it will be completely out of the way. Most divers in wet suits and fresh water need no additional weight, yet everyone must evaluate this very important variable for themselves by testing their buoyancy with empty tanks. > According to Lord High JJ himself, straight off the GUE website: Yawn. Get a new joke, Greg. >> According to Lord High JJ himself, straight off the GUE website: > > Yawn. Get a new joke, Greg. So please explain for the strokes like me why you all have to be so damn anal about your long hoses and cannister lights on reef dives where they're clearly unnecessary, yet can ignore the dictates of the wizened one when it comes to tank selection? > So please explain for the strokes like me why you all have to be so damn > anal about your long hoses and cannister lights on reef dives where they're > clearly unnecessary Because one never knows when one might stumble across a cave that needs to be explored... Same philosophy that has us carrying bangsticks on our cave dives -- you never know when one might encounter a deadly fresh water blind albino shark far in the back of some freshwater spring's cave... Of course, they're also good for ensuring that you can have BBQed manatee after the dive... <evil-grin> > So please explain for the strokes like me why you all have to be so damn > anal about your long hoses and cannister lights on reef dives where they're > clearly unnecessary, yet can ignore the dictates of the wizened one when it > comes to tank selection? I would, but you've heard it all already and you already know that your representation is all wrong. Troll on something that's actually funny. > > So please explain for the strokes like me why you all have to be so damn > > anal about your long hoses and cannister lights on reef dives where they're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I would, but you've heard it all already and you already know that your > representation is all wrong. Troll on something that's actually funny. http://drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm >> > So please explain for the strokes like me why you all have to be so damn >> > anal about your long hoses and cannister lights on reef dives where [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >http://drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm Yep! Rick Simms > That's good. Fortunately you're not DIR. I always wondered how the DIR > types carried their steel tanks on the planes with them, which they must do > since they're usually not available to rent at many dive operations around > the world and they wouldn't let surface considerations get in the way of > doing it right. Is aircraft travel considered DIR? I figured that they had to drive everywhere... <snicker> Seriously though, if you empty the air from your tanks, you can put them in your luggage... Might not have much room for anything else from a weight perspective, but it would be *possible*... Doubles would have to be dissassembled, of course... Now, to make it a bit more interesting, according to the TSA, you can carry a tank as your carry-on baggage as long as the valve is removed... Each airline probably has a different rule with respect to this though... An empty tank usually weighs less than 50 lbs... If you put it in a seabag with a protective foam sleeve around it and check that piece of luggage, you would have just another piece of luggage that was no different than any other 50 lb piece of luggage... I would suggest removing the valve and either carrying it with you or packing it seperately considering the damage that FedEx managed to do to valve on one of my HP-120s -- you should ensure that the bag will be able to handle a drop on the ends without damaging it... >>They done did it just like I said they would. Note that the policy is >>effective immediately, but is "waived" for tickets purchased through 9/7/05: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > -- Bob. Or stop quibbling about nickels and dimes and eat the extra cost.  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > >>They done did it just like I said they would. Note that the policy is > >>effective immediately, but is "waived" for tickets purchased through 9/7/05: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Or stop quibbling about nickels and dimes and eat the extra cost. Haven't you heard, "A dollar saved is a dollar earned?" Or is it 10 dollars? The Qantas bahstards charge something like $40 per kilo for overweight bags. Even if the Aussie dollar is only about 80 cents USD, if you carry that amount in nickels and dimes, you'll be overweight in the carry-on department. :-) -- Bob. >>>>They done did it just like I said they would. Note that the policy is >>>>effective immediately, but is "waived" for tickets purchased through 9/7/05: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > -- Bob. Obviously, the nickel and dime comment is provided figuratively in my feeble attempt to press a point... if I can't take what I need to be comfortable and complete, there's no point leaving the driveway. I realize things are tough all over, and I'm willing to step up to the plate to deal with my share. Yes, there have been times when I shipped the big parts ahead, depending on a variety of circumstances. When I can't do that, I deal with it the best I can, but I'm not stripping myself down to avoid a few dollars extra cost getting there. Frankly, I could easily consider it all a sort of bribe, and I've been paying those for years. It doesn't come out of my pockets anyway, so it doesn't hurt me one teeny bit. AU$40/kilo? That does seem excessive, but if I gotta go, I gotta go. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > >>>>They done did it just like I said they would. Note that the policy is > >>>>effective immediately, but is "waived" for tickets purchased through 9/7/05: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Obviously, the nickel and dime comment is provided figuratively in my > feeble attempt to press a point... In Las Vegas currency, a nichol and dime mean very different amounts depending on the TABLE in which your play. :-) For the "whales" OB scuba: http://www.bestreadguide.com/lasvegas/stories/19990712/lod_whale.shtml *> A source familiar in dealing with "The Whales of the World" *> confirmed that it usually takes a minimum credit line of $5 million *> to even be considered. "They have to average a bet of at least *> $100,000 a hand!" a "nichol", the smallest denomination chips they use is $5,000. USD. The cocktail waitress in Lost Wages love whales! I'll be going to Lost Wegas this weekend, playing as a minature minnow, probably averaging no more than a few "nichels and dimes" (red chips) of those minnows, a hand, unless the conditions at the blackjack tables are occasionally suitable for a few Green "nichols" and black "dimes". Though I've bet more than a black "dime" on one hand many times, the most I've lost in one hand was 4 black dimes (split and double down looking a dealer's 6), and the dealer got lucky. :-) Let's see what your nichols and dimes might be ... > AU$40/kilo? That does seem excessive, but if I gotta go, I gotta go. At the current exchange rate, an AU$ is $0.761 USD, so AU $40 per kilo works out to about $13.84 USD per lb. For my 140 lb excess weight in checked baggage, it would come to $1,973 USD, which would have been more than 4 times the cost of the ticket. :-) I don't care WHAT you call them, but I ain't paying no 20 black LAS "dimes" to any airline for excess checked baggage! -- Bob. > I'll be going to Lost Wegas this weekend, playing as a minature minnow, > probably averaging no more than a few "nichels and dimes" (red chips) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Let's see what your nichols and dimes might be ... Mine seem the same as yours. All the fancier Vegas casinos are $25 minimum now, or just have a token one or two $10 tables that never have open seats. I used to stay at the Mandalay a lot and their new "The Hotel" addition is very nice, especially when you can get a midweek $130 rate for a fraction of the regular $300-400 a night they normally want. But I've been staying at the Aladdin the past few times since Starwood took it over since they automatically upgrade me to a "Strip Suite" complete with jacuzzi regardless of my gambling activities and I get points and accumulate stay credit for next year's "elite" status. They have plenty of $10 tables, so it's easy enough to go from multiple black chips to two red chips when the cards are down. I got yelled at by a pit boss my last time there, though. I have a habit of cashing in small piles of green chips, when I'm lucky enough to accumulate them, for black chips which I promptly stick in my pocket so I can pretend I'm not too far ahead and keep my betting sane. Unfortunately, this last time, the pit boss told me I couldn't do that anymore and demanded I keep all my chips on the table. I thought it weird and of course I started losing at that point and we finally left before I could give them all their money back. It still paid for the room, dinner, gas there and back, and left me a few hundred toward bankrolling my next visit, so I'll probably return to the same place again. Supposedly it's now the Planet Hollywood Hotel and I'm curious to see what they did with all the middle-eastern decor that, in this day of anti-Islamic "patriotism", was costing them their American customers. > > I'll be going to Lost Wegas this weekend, playing as a minature minnow, > > probably averaging no more than a few "nichels and dimes" (red chips) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Mine seem the same as yours. All the fancier Vegas casinos are $25 minimum > now, or just have a token one or two $10 tables that never have open seats. At peak hours perhaps. But not quite that bad. But minimum $10 dime is pretty much the rule than the exception. > I used to stay at the Mandalay a lot and their new "The Hotel" addition is > very nice, especially when you can get a midweek $130 rate for a fraction of > the regular $300-400 a night they normally want. I used to get COMPS for my stay and meals by the hotel across the street, ExCalibur. But comps are much harder to come by now. I phoned the ExCalibur just to see what kind of deal they have for a former regular comp customer. They said they'll give me a special rate of $119 per night -- when I'll be staying at the Hilton at $75 for TWO nights. :-) That was a casino related promo of course. They offered free nights when I entered their Million Dollar Blackjack tournament -- whose "free nights" cost me effectively $333 a night. :-) But in the long run, I've been ahead in Lost Wages, since I play the only game that I can play with infinitesimal better odds against the House. It reminded me the one time I tried to get a COMP at the Venetian, and after playing for several hours averaging $60 a hand or so, I got a "free meal". Upon asking the casino host what it would take to get a comp for ONE night (this was several years ago), he said, average $100 a HAND for 12 hours. That was the permanent end of THAT comp for me. :-) But I've stayed at their biggest 1400 sq ft Piazza Suit for an upgrade from their promotional $99 a night rate because when I arrived at 1 am, they had sold out all their regular suites. > But I've been staying at the Aladdin the past few times since Starwood took > it over since they automatically upgrade me to a "Strip Suite" complete with > jacuzzi regardless of my gambling activities and I get points and accumulate > stay credit for next year's "elite" status. They have plenty of $10 tables, > so it's easy enough to go from multiple black chips to two red chips when > the cards are down. I may have to check them out. That must be the new Aladdin hotel and resort in LAS. > I got yelled at by a pit boss my last time there, > though. I have a habit of cashing in small piles of green chips, when I'm > lucky enough to accumulate them, for black chips which I promptly stick in > my pocket so I can pretend I'm not too far ahead and keep my betting sane. > Unfortunately, this last time, the pit boss told me I couldn't do that > anymore and demanded I keep all my chips on the table. That pit boss is FOS! I walk off with black chips in casinos ALL over the world ALL the time, from playing tables. I seldom play more than 15 or 20 minutes at a time. Just stick the chips in the pocket whenever I please. The dealers always yell to the pit boss when you sit down to start play where you're using black chips from previous sessions to cash in smaller chips. So, to give them the IMPRESSION they may be taking my cash, I periodically change the black "dimes" between tables into bills and plunk down my Franklins instead of black "dimes" when I sit down at the next table. But basically they don't care whether you win or loss, as long as you are not caught cheating. You FOB pit boss just wanted to estimate better (for HIM) how you did. BUt the astute ones know anyway whether you put it into your pocket of laundrer it through the casino cage. > I thought it weird > and of course I started losing at that point and we finally left before I > could give them all their money back. The second hardest thing for most undisciplined gamblers is to walk off a table LOSING. The hardest thing for them to do is to walk away WINNING (not trying to make a KILLING). That's why most of them lose what they won and more before they quit. > It still paid for the room, dinner, > gas there and back, and left me a few hundred toward bankrolling my next > visit, so I'll probably return to the same place again. Supposedly it's now > the Planet Hollywood Hotel and I'm curious to see what they did with all the > middle-eastern decor that, in this day of anti-Islamic "patriotism", was > costing them their American customers. I looked at the web picture and didn't recognize it, and not even sure where it is relative to the Strip. Come down this weekend and and I'll buy you a drink there, while I get all my perks at the Hilton. :-) -- Bob. > > I thought it weird > > and of course I started losing at that point and we finally left before I [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Come down this weekend and and I'll buy you a drink there, while > I get all my perks at the Hilton. :-) Fascinating. Really. Now, after this long-winded essay on gambling tactics, cross-posted to both rec.scuba and rec.scuba.locations, are you still going to give folks a hard time for making off-topic posts? Oh, and I don't gamble. By your own rules of drinking, etc., doesn't this make all us non-gamblers morally superior to you? (you do know that gambling is often considered a tax on people who are bad at math, don't you?). ;-) > > > I thought it weird > > > and of course I started losing at that point and we finally left before I [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > both rec.scuba and rec.scuba.locations, are you still going to give > folks a hard time for making off-topic posts? I NEVER give folks a hard time for making off-topic posts. That's why you don't see me in ANY of the guns and politics threads telling them not to discuss it. I pulled tis topic off the international baggage thread, and labeled it "OT" and specifically on gambling in LAS "Tips on Lost Wages", so people know we were discussing an OT subject that branched off the main subject discussed in those groups. That was ENTIRELY different from the kind of NOISE you were making in butting into my DIVING topics, or even OT topics, for having nothing of substance to say other than making noise. There is a big difference between having an OT discussion, in whatever subject, and just being a pest, a gnat, in making one-liner, or many liner NOISE for the sake of noise making. The latter was/is YOU, Alan Street. Finally, my OT discussions do not detract from the FACT that I have made much more ON TOPIC discussions in scuba and scuba locations, in substance, compared to all your posts put together (97% in noise, and non-scuba OT topics; 3% on something scuba related). Is that too much math for you to understand? > Oh, and I don't gamble. By your own rules of drinking, etc., doesn't > this make all us non-gamblers morally superior to you? (you do know > that gambling is often considered a tax on people who are bad at math, > don't you?). The only thing "superiority" or "inferiority" that comes into play in ANY discussion, on or off topic, is that of "substance" in the discussion. In the case of Alan Street, besides the complete ABSENCE of substance in a discussion, which make him infinitely "inferior" to everyone, his mental capacity of comprehension is clearly inferior too, because he has shown no comprehension of the substance of ANY discussion, scuba or non-scuba, On Topic or OFF topic. Alan Street only babbles and make incomprehensible noise, as he has done in this and every post in which he intruded. Of course I can't expect Alan Street to understand any of what I've just said. But OTHERS clearly do, except Scott and a couple others of the same mental deficiency. :-) Now make yourself scarce, and babble in those OT threads in which I do not engage in, because I choose not to engage in because I have nothing I wish to contribute. -- Bob. > Now make yourself scarce, and babble in those OT threads in > which I do not engage in, because I choose not to engage in > because I have nothing I wish to contribute. You're learning. > ? Bob babbled > ? Now make yourself scarce, and babble in those OT threads in > ? which I do not engage in, because I choose not to engage in > ? because I have nothing I wish to contribute. > You're learning. Careful, you'll soon regret that. > I have a habit of cashing in small piles of green chips, when I'm lucky > enough to accumulate them, for black chips which I promptly stick in my > pocket so I can pretend I'm not too far ahead and keep my betting sane. > Unfortunately, this last time, the pit boss told me I couldn't do that > anymore and demanded I keep all my chips on the table. That's because he cannot manage the table if he can't see all your chips, maybe the house has been on him for his shift numbers. But still I haven't ever seen that before.....nor have I seen a pit boss "yell" at a customer. Most of them have enough authority in their demeanor to not have to act out like that. >> I have a habit of cashing in small piles of green chips, when I'm lucky >> enough to accumulate them, for black chips which I promptly stick in my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Most of them have enough authority in their demeanor to not have to act > out like that. He didn't exactly yell. That was my hyperbole. But he was very stern. It was not a polite request. And I've never seen that before either. I get out to Vegas three or four times a year and I've also gambled in PR, BON, and on a riverboat casino in Baton Rouge without enduring that sort of nonsense. It's not as if I'm any kind of high roller by Vegas standards so you think they would have let me alone. >>>>>>They done did it just like I said they would. Note that the policy is >>>>>>effective immediately, but is "waived" for tickets purchased through 9/7/05: [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > -- Bob. Well, yeah, with those airline rates, DHL flies my friendly skies. And thanks for the Whale insight. Clearly, that's one pond I'll never swim in. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' <snip> >> AU$40/kilo? That does seem excessive, but if I gotta go, I gotta go. > >At the current exchange rate, an AU$ is $0.761 USD, so AU $40 per kilo >works out to about $13.84 USD per lb. For my 140 lb excess weight in >checked baggage, it would come to $1,973 USD, which would have been >more than 4 times the cost of the ticket. :-) Is it really 40 a kilo or 40 a bag? That would make them more money grubbing than Ryan Air or Easy. I seem to remember 40 a bag earlier this year. >I don't care WHAT you call them, but I ain't paying no 20 black LAS >"dimes" to any airline for excess checked baggage! > >-- Bob. Signaturedillon Pain is Nature's way of saying "that was stupid" > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I seem to remember 40 a bag earlier this year. Dillon, you should know better than that! Just go to the Qantas page: > Kilograms in excess of the free baggage allowance are multiplied by > the applicable zonal rate. Zone Mileage Rates per Kilogram Zone 5 7001 to 9000 A$40 Zone 6 9001 and over A$40 -- Bob. > >I don't care WHAT you call them, but I ain't paying no 20 black LAS > >"dimes" to any airline for excess checked baggage! > > > >-- Bob. > >>They done did it just like I said they would. Note that the policy is > >>effective immediately, but is "waived" for tickets purchased through 9/7/05: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Or stop quibbling about nickels and dimes and eat the extra cost. You can eat $1937 USD's worth of cost and not get indigestion? > -- > jer > email reply - I am not a 'ten' You're not even a 'one-tenth". :) -- Bob. > They done did it just like I said they would. Note that the policy is > effective immediately, but is "waived" for tickets purchased through [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > international travel, to reflect new weight limits of 50 lbs. (22 kg) each > for up to two pieces. Check-in curbside, and have your $10 or $20 in the same hand you use to hand your ID and ticket/reservation to the agent on duty. > > They done did it just like I said they would. Note that the policy is > > effective immediately, but is "waived" for tickets purchased through [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Check-in curbside, and have your $10 or $20 in the same hand you use to hand > your ID and ticket/reservation to the agent on duty. In that case, why not just be at the ready with $25? "Overweight: Over 50 lbs (22.7 kg) and not exceeding 70 lbs (32 kg) - $25.00 per piece" > "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> Check-in curbside, and have your $10 or $20 in the same hand you use to > hand >> your ID and ticket/reservation to the agent on duty. > > In that case, why not just be at the ready with $25? ***(quietly considering my options) Gee, what a quandry. If I assume this an honest question then I also assume she is stupid. But if I assume this a joke, I may implying worse accusations on her intelligence, if she is serious. OK, I've decided the former is the best course of action....since at this point no one knows I believe it to be a moronic inquiry (Alright..ready to speak out loud).*** Because 1) $ 10 or $ 20 is less than $ 25, and 2x's less when the return is considered 2) you might be more than 70 lb 3) you might be traveling with someone else (many of us do, ya know) who is also overweight 4) if $ 25 matters to someone, then I'd assume $ 5 or $ 15 would as well. > Because > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 4) if $ 25 matters to someone, then I'd assume $ 5 or $ 15 would as well. But as U.S. airport security measures have grown stricter and the airlines have become more restrictive, I've noticed the skycaps aren't always as eager to help passengers bend the rules even with a sizeable tip. > But as U.S. airport security measures have grown stricter and the airlines > have become more restrictive, I've noticed the skycaps aren't always as > eager to help passengers bend the rules even with a sizeable tip. I cannot say that has been my experience. I have never seen a Skycap working a curbside check-in kiosk weigh a bag. And I fly a considerable amount. And now that the airlines are talking about dissolving the contractual relationship they have with Skycaps and instead moving them to gratuity workers I doubt sincerely any Skycap at any American airport has the interests of the airline or airport in mind when a decent tip is being proffered. >> But as U.S. airport security measures have grown stricter and the airlines >> have become more restrictive, I've noticed the skycaps aren't always as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >interests of the airline or airport in mind when a decent tip is being >proffered. I believe it was United who just started charging for curbside check in. How long before they start charging if you don't use self check in? Signaturedillon Pain is Nature's way of saying "that was stupid" > I believe it was United who just started charging for curbside check > in. How long before they start charging if you don't use self check > in? I'm sure Ross can just slip the machine a fast $10. >> I believe it was United who just started charging for curbside check >> in. How long before they start charging if you don't use self check >> in? > > I'm sure Ross can just slip the machine a fast $10. I think it will be funny when Ross slips 'em a fast $10 before they take his bags and they come back asking for $25 per overweight bag. It's a new world. >>> I believe it was United who just started charging for curbside check >>> in. How long before they start charging if you don't use self check [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > his bags and they come back asking for $25 per overweight bag. It's a new > world. To think one could actually wait until receiving the desired service before handing over the tip How much better would life in this world be if LA folks shared all their keen insights with us :^) I'll assume this was an opportunity to show solidarity with chilly. Otherwise I'm left only to conclude you are as brilliantly dopey as she often seems. > To think one could actually wait until receiving the desired service > before handing over the tip How much better would life in this world be if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Otherwise I'm left only to conclude you are as brilliantly dopey as she > often seems. I guess I must be both brilliantly dopey and in solidarity with chilly who has plenty good reason to think you an a.s because you're the typical condescending know-it-all who's full of sh.t. You had said: "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2z2Ke.16$IC2.4565@news.uswest.net... > Check-in curbside, and have your $10 or $20 in the same hand you use to > hand your ID and ticket/reservation to the agent on duty. Which obviously meant you tip before receiving the desired service. So I said: >> I think it will be funny when Ross slips 'em a fast $10 before they take >> his bags and they come back asking for $25 per overweight bag. It's a >> new world. And yes, I think it will be funny when you tip them expecting them to ignore the overweight requirements and they pocket your tip for handling your bags, then stick you for the overweight charges. I've had a skycap cart my bags over to the airline's check-in counter specifically so I could pay the overweight charges. According to you, if I had handed him $10 or $20 at the beginning of our transaction, he wouldn't have been such a stickler. But then you also claim that most passengers tip more than the usually expected $2 per bag, so he would have no reason to believe I wouldn't have given up $10 or $20 after he cleared my bags. Make up your mind. You're sounding like the dopiest one around here. Have you actually flown in the last couple years? > I guess I must be both brilliantly dopey and in solidarity with chilly I can only take your word on that. > You had said: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which obviously meant you tip before receiving the desired service. Always be careful of "obviously". > I've had a skycap cart my bags over to the airline's check-in counter > specifically so I could pay the overweight charges. You managed that situation perfectly, didn't you? > According to you, if I had handed him $10 or $20 at the beginning of our > transaction, No, that's according to your insufficient understanding of what I wrote, your brilliant dopiness or your solidarity with chilly. I never said you hand him the money when you hand him the ID/ticket. I said you have it in the same hand you use to give him the ticket and ID. Let me recap and quote: "same hand you use to hand your ID and ticket/reservation". Do you see any words in there that even imply you hand him the money along with your ticket and ID? So much for "obviously". > he wouldn't have been such a stickler. But then you also claim that most > passengers tip more than the usually expected $2 per bag, so he would have > no reason to believe I wouldn't have given up $10 or $20 after he cleared > my bags. The fact that he carted you to a scale gives some indication he didn't think you were going to give him anything worthwhile. Maybe it was your "dopey" look. Or maybe it was the fact that you didn't show him your intended tip for the service you might need. I'm not saying it is right, but I am saying it isn't unlike most other negotiations one enters into. Where's the inducement? > Make up your mind. You're sounding like the dopiest one around here. My thoughts on you, precisely. How badly could someone manage a situation that the skycap/porter is so certain no decent tip is coming, that he would step away from normal work (which is being available to travelers so he can earn a gratuity) to take you and your bags to a counter for weighing? In the time it took him to drag you and your bags inside to a counter scale, he probably missed a tip or two. Nah, I don't think he looked at you and thought there was any possibility whatsoever you were going to supplement his day's income to the tune of an extra $ 20. Instead it seems like he might have been out to "get" you. Maybe he thought you were an "a.s". > Have you actually flown in the last couple years? Yep. And no Skycap has ever carted me and my bags inside to a ticketing counter to weigh and then charge me for being over the limit. I attribute that to the fact that when I am overweight I place my intended tip in the same hand I use to hand him my ID and ticket, so he has a clear understanding that I need something extra and knows how much I am offering for that service. >> "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:2z2Ke.16$IC2.4565@news.uswest.net... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Always be careful of "obviously". >> According to you, if I had handed him $10 or $20 at the beginning of our >> transaction, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hand him the money when you hand him the ID/ticket. I said you have it in > the same hand you use to give him the ticket and ID. I see. Now you're claiming that your hand with the $10 or $20 that also holds the ID and ticket/reservation just hands over part of what's in the hand, like some magician doing card tricks. Let's see how this works. Assuming you hold the ticket/reservation and your ID with a typical thumb opposing four fingers grip, the money must be stacked either on top or under or in between the documents. How do you control that the skycap doesn't grab the whole shebang? Don't you look silly standing around with the bill in your hand after he's taken the documents, or do you then put the money back in your pocket? >> I've had a skycap cart my bags over to the airline's check-in counter >> specifically so I could pay the overweight charges. > > You managed that situation perfectly, didn't you? I usually play the "flash the big money at the skycap" game too, though I use different hands because it's more practical. It obviously didn't work in this case. I guess I'll try the same hand sleight of hand next time. > Let me recap and quote: "same hand you use to hand your ID and > ticket/reservation". Do you see any words in there that even imply you > hand > him the money along with your ticket and ID? Same hand obviously implies it. The other implication, that you stand around with the bill in your hand after he's taken the documents is just too ridiculous and I didn't take you for a silly guy. I guess I was wrong. > So much for "obviously". Obviously. > The fact that he carted you to a scale gives some indication he didn't > think > you were going to give him anything worthwhile. Maybe it was your "dopey" > look. Or maybe it was the fact that you didn't show him your intended tip > for the service you might need. Since I did the latter, it must have been my "dopey" look, while you hopping around with your bill in your hand, waving it in the skycap's face like you're giving a dog a treat, don't look dopey at all. Or it could just be their policy and perhaps the airline doesn't appreciate that they take bribes to get around it. Maybe he's had baggage refused before by the airline and he had to pay the $25 charge out of the $10 or $20 that some dopey gave gave him and he doesn't want to get burned again. >> Make up your mind. You're sounding like the dopiest one around here. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > time it took him to drag you and your bags inside to a counter scale, he > probably missed a tip or two. Perhaps he believes his normal work is to cart the bags for the customer and allow him to avoid lines inside the airport, but he doesn't believe his job is to contravent airline baggage policies. What's next, do you tip the TSA guy a $50 and he lets you bring your gun on the plane? > Nah, I don't think he looked at you and thought there was any possibility > whatsoever you were going to supplement his day's income to the tune of an > extra $ 20. Instead it seems like he might have been out to "get" you. > Maybe > he thought you were an "a.s". Now you're confusing me again. a.s or dope, which is it? > Yep. And no Skycap has ever carted me and my bags inside to a ticketing > counter to weigh and then charge me for being over the limit. I attribute > that to the fact that when I am overweight I place my intended tip in the > same hand I use to hand him my ID and ticket, so he has a clear > understanding that I need something extra and knows how much I am offering > for that service. That used to work with cops too, and maybe it still does in certain jurisdictions. Nowadays, most bureaus have cleaned up and they'll ignore the $100 you pass over with your driver's license or possibly arrest you for attempted bribery. Heck, most Vegas shows won't even let you tip the host for a better seat. Obviously skycaps are cleaning up their act too. The next time I see some dopey-looking guy getting carted away by airline security for attempting to induce a skycap into defrauding the airline, I'll yell "Ross!" and see if it's you. >> No, that's according to your insufficient understanding of what I wrote, >> your brilliant dopiness or your solidarity with chilly. I never said you >> hand him the money when you hand him the ID/ticket. I said you have it in >> the same hand you use to give him the ticket and ID. > > I see. Not according to your following comment you don't. > Let's see how this works. Let's not. You're just making excuses now for not understanding what was a fairly simple and understandable comment. > I usually play the "flash the big money at the skycap" game too, I've noticed...that comes across so clearly in all your comments about holding oney in the same hand I use to hand over the passport and ID. > though I use different hands because it's more practical. "obviously"...it is much more practical to hold both hands above the top of a high desk. And it looks far less conspicuous as well. > It obviously didn't work in this case. I guess I'll try the same hand > sleight of hand next time. Hey, let's agree you either didn't show enough money, or he didn't see the other hand...as practical as it was to hold the money in it. >> Let me recap and quote: "same hand you use to hand your ID and >> ticket/reservation". Do you see any words in there that even imply you >> hand >> him the money along with your ticket and ID? > > Same hand obviously implies it. How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? > The other implication, that you stand around with the bill in your hand > after he's taken the documents That is precisely what I do. The point is he knows how much and he knows it is out. > is just too ridiculous No, ridiculous is being dragged inside and paying weight charges because you couldn't, wouldn't make it clear you would pay him for passing your bags thru. > and I didn't take you for a silly guy. I guess I was wrong. What happens when a lawyer takes Viagra? >> The fact that he carted you to a scale gives some indication he didn't >> think [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hopping around with your bill in your hand, waving it in the skycap's face > like you're giving a dog a treat, don't look dopey at all. Ah, come on. That's pathetic. Are you really at that much of a loss in this argument that your left with making things up. > Or it could just be their policy and perhaps the airline doesn't > appreciate that they take bribes to get around it. Maybe he's had baggage > refused before by the airline and he had to pay the $25 charge out of the > $10 or $20 that some dopey gave gave him and he doesn't want to get burned > again. Your crying just a bit here, and I don't like it. > Perhaps he believes his normal work is to cart the bags for the customer > and allow him to avoid lines inside the airport, Yeah, you've convinced me that a guy assigned to check-in travelers and bags at the curbside kiosk, where he has people standing in line with tips in their hands, believes his job is to leave it and run around the airport soliciting people to let him cart their bags. Of course, why didn't I think of that? > but he doesn't believe his job is to contravent airline baggage policies. Of course he doesn't. He isn't out there to make tips...after all he is paid extremely well by the hour....$ 3.15 per. That kind of money is all it takes to develop the unrelenting loyalty you discovered in your side trip to the inside counter. > What's next, do you tip the TSA guy a $50 and he lets you bring your gun > on the plane? You're whining again....and I still don't like it. >> Nah, I don't think he looked at you and thought there was any possibility >> whatsoever you were going to supplement his day's income to the tune of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Now you're confusing me again. a.s or dope, which is it? I don't know...we'd have to check with this imaginary, loyal, straight-arrow, Skycap. For myself...you copped to "dopey" so I accepted that at face value. I can go with "dopey a.s" if you'd like. > That used to work with cops too, and maybe it still does in certain > jurisdictions. Nowadays, most bureaus have cleaned up and they'll ignore [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > security for attempting to induce a skycap into defrauding the airline, > I'll yell "Ross!" and see if it's you. How does a pregnant women know she is carrying a future lawyer? ... > I believe it was United who just started charging for curbside check > in. Cost to the consumer isn't going to change because the vast majority of people who use curbside already tip at or above the $2 per bag charge (so say the Skycap contractors at Midway, Boston, Seattle, O'Hare). It's the Skycap who is getting screwed....in which case additional tip may prove even more effective than before. I suspect the day of the pleasent, charming Skycap is now a thing of the past though. Morale isn't likely to go up as gratuities come down. > > "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > joke, I may implying worse accusations on her intelligence, if she is > serious. OK, I've decided the former is the best course of action.... OK, if you consider honesty as stupid, go ahead, and call me stupid. I'm sure someone with characteristics such as you have, couldn't hurt my feelings in the least. (snip) > OK, if you consider honesty as stupid, go ahead, and call me stupid. It shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand that an honest inquiry often belies what one would otherwise assume is an intelligent questioner, and therefore no claim or implication of "honesty as stupid" exists in my comment. > sure someone with characteristics such as you have, couldn't hurt my > feelings in the least. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I simply responded with the same smart-assed intent you first exhibited. But now that you have assailed my "characteristics", my own feelings are irreparably injured. > I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I simply responded with the same > smart-assed intent you first exhibited. Ross, I had told you before that you're a very perceptive man! I didn't see your conversation, but I trust you had her sized up perfectly. :-) chilly is ALWAYS a smart-a.s, like several of her Dysfunctional Gang pals, such as Alan Street. <Note to Alan: PLEASE put me in your killfile. :-) Else, DON'T cite the part of this post that includes chilly and DING DONG -- just to bring them out behind your noisy bark> ... at any rate ... there are folks here who who have a one-link smart a.s follow-up to my post, but cite my ENTIRE post, to bring out the expected BLIND OSTRICHES because they would have read my post or part of my post SECOND hand ... to join the smart-a.s in a chorus of caccaphonic noise. :-) Since I had clubbed her so hard on the head with whatever she deserved, she has joined Mr. DING DONG Bell in putting me on their killfiles. Hallelujah, rec.scuba has been MUCH better off since. :-) Now if you can make her put YOU in her killfile, than your problems are over. She never has anything useful to contribute in any rec.scuba.* discussions anyway, other than "smart-assed" intent and remarks. This is ANOTHER orientation Public Service Announcement for new comers to rec.scuba.* who have substance to contribute to SCUBA discussions. -- Bob. "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :> I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I simply responded with the same :> smart-assed intent you first exhibited. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] : :-- Bob. Like this? Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. <chop> > Like this? Where ya been Dan? "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Where ya been Dan? Ya know the old saying, rec.scuba, love it or leave it. I left it. Didn't notice Feesh had cross posted when I replied. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Didn't notice Feesh had cross posted when I replied. I crosspost SOME threads when it clearly applied to both groups. In THIS particular thread, Greg crossposted it. I merely replied. Scott is of course one of the IDIOTS in rec.scuba who gave reasons why I rated rec.scuba.locations as the ONLY group left (in the USA) in which SCUBA is still discussed, to the tune of not completely drowned out by idiots like Scott. C'est la vie. -- Bob. > :Where ya been Dan? > > Ya know the old saying, rec.scuba, love it or leave it. I left it. Until recently anyways. Hey, do miss your wit. > Didn't notice Feesh had cross posted when I replied. Ding-a-Ling probably does it on purpose to force his presence, then some of y'all help him out by quoting him (although your last quote was a good one). Bob has some delusions as to why he gets into killfiles. Curtis cross-posting this one intentionally > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> pounded away at his > keyboard resulting in: > > Like this? Good to see you back, stirring the pot again Dan. By the way, do you know the difference between a brown-noser and a sh.t disturber? It's depth perception. As for Reef . . .Boob, you are not in my killfile because you've ever "pounded" me, or whatever other nonsense you just spewed. Your opinion of me matters not one whit. You are in my killfile because of my opinion of you. I find you to be a tedious, self-important blowhard and I haven't felt like poking you with a stick for a while. Further, any good info you could offer to newcomers, is too covered in crap to be of any value. Now, as you know, I'm not going to be able to see your long-winded and derisive response to this, so make sure that your butt-buddy Dan quotes you. > Now, as you know, I'm not going to be able to see your long-winded and > derisive response to this, so make sure that your butt-buddy Dan quotes > you. For that matter, make sure that someone quotes Dan. Supernews seems to have him in their killfile. > Good to see you back, stirring the pot again Dan. :-) > As for Reef . . .Boob, you are not in my killfile because you've ever > "pounded" me, or whatever other nonsense you just spewed. Your opinion of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > offer > to newcomers, is too covered in crap to be of any value. You tell him! Besides, he's among those who assumes that those who choose not to brag are "newbies". Curtis "Magilla" wrote: > > Good to see you back, stirring the pot again Dan. > > :-) > > > As for Reef . . .Boob, you are not in my killfile because you've ever > > "pounded" me, or whatever other nonsense you just spewed. I wonder why there are sooooooooooo many hits on "Queen bitch" as in: chilly> That's Queen Bitch. Check the archives. RF> Checked. Two others in rec.scuba already had that title, RF> so I gave one to chilly, as she requested, on 4/10/2004: RF> chilly, Queen Bitch of rec.scuba, addicted to ankle-biting, RF> blissful ignorance, and incessant noise-making, and ... RF> Feeesh worshipping. > You tell him! and I stomped on her. :-) She obviously prefers "stomped" to "pounded", but she is also proud of her BITCHY status. > Besides, he's among those who assumes that those who choose not to brag > are "newbies". > > Curtis Au contraire, Curtis. You are called many things by OTHERS, but I never called you a newbie. Now, 'fess up: Are you, Curtis: 1. the same poster better known as an Aldora IDIOT, CPR86? <you've evaded that question at least three times> 2. the GAY gorilla Greg identified. 3. REALLY a necrophiliac that you have just revealed to Scott: Curtis> I get reminded of what every time someone plays Curtis> with the "corpse". da Feeesh! > > OK, if you consider honesty as stupid, go ahead, and call me stupid. > > It shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand that an honest inquiry > often belies what one would otherwise assume is an intelligent questioner, > and therefore no claim or implication of "honesty as stupid" exists in my > comment. Unh hunh > > sure someone with characteristics such as you have, couldn't hurt my > > feelings in the least. > > I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I simply responded with the same > smart-assed intent you first exhibited. It shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand that honest inquiry is not the same as "smart-assed intent". > But now that you have assailed my "characteristics", my own feelings are > irreparably injured. Sure they are. Just imagine how you'd feel had I impugned your whole character instead of just the characteristics evidenced in this thread. I'm still waiting to hear how you plan to get your overweight bags through without paying the airline extra, at the new self-checkin counters, merely by tipping a skycap. I'm also curious about this practice you have of giving your passport (ID) to a Skycap. How does that work when the attendant checks the passport? Does he look over his shoulder and point at you, thereby distracting the attendant as he sneaks your bags onto the conveyor belt without them being weighed? When was the last time you flew and was it an international flight? > It shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand that honest inquiry > is > not the same as "smart-assed intent". I'll take that to mean you didn't reach a point of comprehension. > I'm still waiting to hear how you plan to get your overweight bags through > without paying the airline extra, at the new self-check-in counters, > merely > by tipping a skycap. By checking myself and bags with the Skycap at curbside. > I'm also curious about this practice you have of giving your passport (ID) > to a Skycap. I don't know why. It is a fairly simple gesture they seem to immediately understand. And I believe research has shown we, and those before us, have been doing this type of activity, with all different types of objects, since the predecessors of the human race developed thumbs. > How does that work when the attendant checks the passport? I could care less what the "attendant" does because unless they are outside grabbing a smoke, I don't see them and they don't look at my passport. > Does he look over his shoulder and point at you, thereby distracting the > attendant as he sneaks your bags onto the conveyor belt without them being > weighed? You're being dopey again. Go back and rethink what it means, and how it happens, when one checks in at curbside. > When was the last time you flew and was it an international flight? Oh, so you think you've found a gaping hole in my suggestion to check international bags at curbside....do ya? Think a little longer and maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it, you'll understand where the loopholes for international baggage check-in rules for US origination, US arrival and US carriers anywhere in the world generally occur. > > It shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand that honest inquiry Don't know if it's relevant to this conversation, But in Houston at the intercontinental airport you can no longer check your bag at curbside for Continental intercontinental flights...making the point moot. Jack > > > It shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand that honest inquiry > > Don't know if it's relevant to this conversation, But in Houston at the > intercontinental airport you can no longer check your bag at curbside for > Continental intercontinental flights...making the point moot. > Jack Perhaps I should have said international flights. Jack >> > It shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand that honest >> > inquiry > > Don't know if it's relevant to this conversation, But in Houston at the > intercontinental airport you can no longer check your bag at curbside for > Continental intercontinental flights Yes, that's a TSA rule at every airport departing the US and every flight returning to the US. I alluded to in the last paragraph of my previous post. > Check-in curbside, and have your $10 or $20 in the same hand you use to hand > your ID and ticket/reservation to the agent on duty. You can't check in curbside if you're declaring a firearm... >> Check-in curbside, and have your $10 or $20 in the same hand you use to >> hand >> your ID and ticket/reservation to the agent on duty. > > You can't check in curbside if you're declaring a firearm... You bring a firearm on international flights? > You bring a firearm on international flights? Yeah, sometimes I'm forced to fly outside of Texas... If weight is an issue, maybe they should weigh the baggage and the passenger together. Anyone over a certain total weight has to pay more for the excess fuel. That would be more fair to all. >> You bring a firearm on international flights? > > Yeah, sometimes I'm forced to fly outside of Texas... > If weight is an issue, maybe they should weigh the baggage and the passenger > together. Anyone over a certain total weight has to pay more for the excess > fuel. That would be more fair to all. I've seen passengers that weighed more than myself and my stuff. >> If weight is an issue, maybe they should weigh the baggage and the >> passenger [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I've seen passengers that weighed more than myself and my stuff. Big deal. In a hurricane, you're the one who's gonna be hanging on for dear life from a palm tree. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message