Woman Claims U.S. Airways Lost Her Special Needs Brother
55 replies, posted
He was probably arrested and is Guantanamo now.
An Australian citizen who was here had schizophrenia and ended up in prison for asylum seekers for almost a year until someone figured out she wasn't actually sane and didn't arrive here by boat
[QUOTE=Contag;33912656]He was probably arrested and is Guantanamo now.
An Australian citizen who was here had schizophrenia and ended up in prison for asylum seekers for almost a year until someone figured out she wasn't actually sane and didn't arrive here by boat[/QUOTE]
First off, they found the guy, and he was reunited with the family. Learn to read.
Secondly, Guantanamo was shut down a while ago.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;33913197]First off, they found the guy, and he was reunited with the family. Learn to read.
Secondly, Guantanamo was shut down a while ago.[/QUOTE]
Wow your American rage-o-meter just went off huh
Calm down buddy
They should have taken Quantas.
Wait what the fuck are you even talking about?
don't rage against me when [I]you're not even right[/I]
tell me the date that Guantanamo was shut down?
oh wait you can't because it wasn't
[quote] and they says[/quote]
Now i'm confused as to which sibling was mentally handicapped
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;33913197]First off, they found the guy, and he was reunited with the family. Learn to read.
Secondly, Guantanamo was shut down a while ago.[/QUOTE]
First off, he was being sarcastic. I'm pretty sure saying 'He's at Guantanamo' in this case could [i]not[/i] be mistaken as serious, unless you're incredibly stupid.
Secondly, Guantanamo was never shut down. Do you want to go ahead and link me to a valid source that says it was? Pretty sure it would have been covered massively in the news. In fact, what [i]was[/i] in the news recently (January of this year) was how Obama signed an act into place that effectively prevented the closure of the detention camp. What, did you just hear the word 'Guantanamo' in the news and assumed it had been closed?
What was that you were saying about learning to read? You might want to take your own advice.
[QUOTE=certified;33908475]Even if this was someone who did not have special needs, either way it is not the airline's fault if someone can not make it to the plane on time.
Same for trains, it is not the rail company's fault that someone does not make it to the train.[/QUOTE]
They usually have people that escort people with disabilities from gate to gate if needed. The family has to pre-arrange it though.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;33913633]They usually have people that escort people with disabilities from gate to gate if needed. The family has to pre-arrange it though.[/QUOTE]
That's the thing. If they have escorts for minors, they should for people with disabilities.
Except if she or her family didn't arrange for it, then they're in the wrong. However, the airline's response should nonetheless be condemned for an utter lack of compassion.
[QUOTE=Contag;33913251]Wow your American rage-o-meter just went off huh
Calm down buddy[/QUOTE]
Um, I wasn't raging. I was just saying. Who are you to say that I was being angry on an internet forum where emotions can't be easily read? Hell, if I WAS being ragetastic, I would have added an insult and put some words in caps for EMPHASIS like that.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33913626]First off, he was being sarcastic. I'm pretty sure saying 'He's at Guantanamo' in this case could [i]not[/i] be mistaken as serious, unless you're incredibly stupid.
Secondly, Guantanamo was never shut down. Do you want to go ahead and link me to a valid source that says it was? Pretty sure it would have been covered massively in the news. In fact, what [i]was[/i] in the news recently (January of this year) was how Obama signed an act into place that effectively prevented the closure of the detention camp. What, did you just hear the word 'Guantanamo' in the news and assumed it had been closed?
What was that you were saying about learning to read? You might want to take your own advice.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
Bam.
For that do not fly, you can hire a person from the airline company to basically be a guide/guardian and they will basically take you from point A to B.
This may have been the case, but if most people read the article, which they didn't. He got lost on his way there and she asked for help. They were asses about it so she blew it up to a media frenzy.
I swear people need to stop reading the title and responding and read the whole flipping article.
Title is terribly misleading. Good job reading the article, OP.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;33913765]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
Bam.[/QUOTE]
Oh wow, you really don't know how to critically examine media, do you? That was published in 2009, mate. Seven days after the order in that article was issued, there was a controversy which delayed that action revolving around the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri when a military judge at the Bay rejected the White House request. In May of 2009, the US Senate passed an amendment which blocked the funds needed for the transfer or release of the prisoners held there. As of this year, the remaining prisoners still reside in the camp. Like I said (if you had [b]read[/b] my post), in January this year Obama was more or less pressured into signing the Defense Authorization Act which prevented the transfer of those prisoners to the mainland or other foreign countries, which means - in case you're too fucking stupid to figure it out - that the detention camp is still open.
Don't give me a three year old article about a [i]direction[/i] given to the CIA, and tell me that it was executed perfectly without bothering to check your facts first - especially when it relates to something so politically explosive as Guantanamo, and when I explicitly mentioned a much more recent update. Are you seriously this shit at forming an argument? ffs, a quick visit to a wikipedia page would have informed you that you were incorrect about it being closed down.
[i]Bam.[/i]
Actually, the airline do actually have to help someone disabled to a flight if it is know beforehand. My familly does this all the time. You get to jump queues and shit!
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;33913765]Um, I wasn't raging. I was just saying. Who are you to say that I was being angry on an internet forum where emotions can't be easily read? Hell, if I WAS being ragetastic, I would have added an insult and put some words in caps for EMPHASIS like that.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
Bam.[/QUOTE]
Hey feller don't grow a persecution complex. Plus you're wrong.
[QUOTE=teslacoil;33908566]Because they refused to help her get to him.
Hell, they refused any service.[/QUOTE]
Let it be said that if you have a relative that is mentally handicapped to whatever degree you should send someone who has the average IQ or higher with no other impairment to their physical or mental health to actually help said mentally handicapped relative to help him achieve where he's going.
Blaming the airline for being punctual and not taking care of one person out of many despite them being mentally handicapped is crass and idiotic, the needs of many shall overrule the needs of few (or one) when they're in the same financial status quo.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33916542]Oh wow, you really don't know how to critically examine media, do you? That was published in 2009, mate. Seven days after the order in that article was issued, there was a controversy which delayed that action revolving around the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri when a military judge at the Bay rejected the White House request. In May of 2009, the US Senate passed an amendment which blocked the funds needed for the transfer or release of the prisoners held there. As of this year, the remaining prisoners still reside in the camp. Like I said (if you had [b]read[/b] my post), in January this year Obama was more or less pressured into signing the Defense Authorization Act which prevented the transfer of those prisoners to the mainland or other foreign countries, which means - in case you're too fucking stupid to figure it out - that the detention camp is still open.
Don't give me a three year old article about a [i]direction[/i] given to the CIA, and tell me that it was executed perfectly without bothering to check your facts first - especially when it relates to something so politically explosive as Guantanamo, and when I explicitly mentioned a much more recent update. Are you seriously this shit at forming an argument? ffs, a quick visit to a wikipedia page would have informed you that you were incorrect about it being closed down.
[i]Bam.[/i][/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's my fault for not knowing that this shit got reversed as soon as it was announced. After this was announced I didn't hear anything else about it so I assumed it stuck. But I was wrong. Sorry.
You don't seem to understand what an airline does. How was the airline supposed to help? Send pilots and flight attendants to scour the airport in which they have no authority?
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;33923267]Yeah, it's my fault for not knowing that this shit got reversed as soon as it was announced. After this was announced I didn't hear anything else about it so I assumed it stuck. But I was wrong. Sorry.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not that you didn't know it was reversed. It was that Contag and I told you you were incorrect, and you continued to insist you were right (and gave me a three year old article to 'prove' so). Why would you not, um, look it up, especially after I had mentioned a much more recent development? It would take like five seconds. And do you not watch news, or read newspapers? Guantanamo is such a huge politically charged topic in the US, and it's in the media there all the time. I just find it astounding that you never heard anything to the contrary, and then that you just assumed because you heard about a direction given to the CIA three years ago that it had been executed properly, and the detention facility was well and truly closed. Don't you know that in the space of three years, things can happen?
And all this after you told Contag to learn how to read. As I said. Take your own damn advice.
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;33923354]You don't seem to understand what an airline does. How was the airline supposed to help? Send pilots and flight attendants to scour the airport in which they have no authority?[/QUOTE]
Who was this in relation to?
Anyhow, as people have pointed out, basically all airlines have escorts for this kind of thing. Since we don't know if the family made arrangements for this, we don't have enough information to determine whether they fucked up, or the airline did.
@Chessnut
this isn't youtube, don't do that.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;33923267]Yeah, it's my fault for not knowing that this shit got reversed as soon as it was announced. After this was announced [B]I didn't hear anything else about i[/B]t so I assumed it stuck. But I was wrong. Sorry.[/QUOTE]
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU.
HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING IN A CAVE?
The internet has been frenzied about Guantanamo with the NDAA
How about you not talk about politics or news when you clearly know nothing about either?
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33923495]No, it's not that you didn't know it was reversed. It was that Contag and I told you you were incorrect, and you continued to insist you were right (and gave me a three year old article to 'prove' so). Why would you not, um, look it up, especially after I had mentioned a much more recent development? It would take like five seconds. And do you not watch news, or read newspapers? Guantanamo is such a huge politically charged topic in the US, and it's in the media there all the time. I just find it astounding that you never heard anything to the contrary, and then that you just assumed because you heard about a direction given to the CIA three years ago that it had been executed properly, and the detention facility was well and truly closed. Don't you know that in the space of three years, things can happen?
And all this after you told Contag to learn how to read. As I said. Take your own damn advice.[/QUOTE]
I did look it up. I looked up "Guantanamo shut down" and that article was the first result. Also, most of the news I get comes from here, on Facepunch, and I haven't seen a thread on Guantanamo in years. I have followed my own damn advice.
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;33924527]WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU.
HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING IN A CAVE?
The internet has been frenzied about Guantanamo with the NDAA
How about you not talk about politics or news when you clearly know nothing about either?[/QUOTE]
I never heard a goddamn thing about Guantanamo in any discussion of the NDAA. I hear a lot about "detainment", but not one specific reference to Guantanamo.
Wow you're really still trying to defend yourself. Okay then.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;33925430]Wow you're really still trying to defend yourself. Okay then.[/QUOTE]
I've already admitted I'm wrong. I don't even know what's going on anymore.
Except that you're insisting that your mistake wasn't one that was easily rectified.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;33924543]I did look it up. I looked up "Guantanamo shut down" and that article was the first result. [/quote]
The first result, huh? Did you not look at it and think, "Oh, maybe a three year article isn't perhaps the current or best source of information on this topic"? Apparently not, because you were too busy showing how I was wrong. Except that I wasn't.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;33924543]Also, most of the news I get comes from here, on Facepunch, and I haven't seen a thread on Guantanamo in years. I have followed my own damn advice.
[/QUOTE]
No, you haven't. Because if you're arguing about something that has been covered in the media extensively in the past decade, and you haven't read something about it 'in years', you are not following your own advice when you neglect to even do a minute's worth of research and read up on the matter.
You've made your point a while ago. I concede.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.