Is a bar of soap okay to carry-on?

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:13:15 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com>
wrote:

>DevilsPGD writes:
>
>> Chances are not, but if you approach them up front and say "is this
>> allowed" rather then look like you're sneaking it, the worst that will
>> happen is that you'll be asked to discard it.
>
>If you give someone a chance to impose a restriction, he usually will. It's
>human nature.

It's not human nature unless you're a right-wing conservative.
Personally, the only restriction I ever put on people is that they
leave me alone. Even when I give advice to people, I don't want them
to do what I say. I want them to explore the pros and cons on each
side and think for themselves.

Speaking of restrictions, TSA restrictions are bullshit. I think
they're mainly a placebo to make the idiots of America feel like
they're being protected by some force greater than themselves, similar
to the color-coded terror alert system and religion.

Speaking of religion, it's ironic such a Christian nation would be so
paranoid. Where's all that faith and belief in an afterlife? If
"God" is on America's side, like George Bush thinks, and "God" has so
many super great powers then where's "God" using all that omniscience
and omnipotence to keep terrorists off the planes? Besides that,
aren't Christians supposed to enjoy death through martyrdom just as
much as Muslims?

(Agnostic atheist here. I don't care for either or any religion.)

In news:tv7l13h3muo591ff3936c3qr902pr6mkdh@4ax.com BubbaGump
<BubbaGump@localhost> wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:13:15 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>>
>>If you give someone a chance to impose a restriction, he usually will.
>> It's human nature.
>
> It's not human nature unless you're a right-wing conservative.

Yeah; history is full of right-wing conservatives running totalitarian
regimes as in China, the ex-Soviet Union and all the Peoples States of
Asia and Africa.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

On 09 Apr 2007 20:33:03 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>In news:tv7l13h3muo591ff3936c3qr902pr6mkdh@4ax.com BubbaGump
><BubbaGump@localhost> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:13:15 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>If you give someone a chance to impose a restriction, he usually will.
>>> It's human nature.
>>
>> It's not human nature unless you're a right-wing conservative.
>
>Yeah; history is full of right-wing conservatives running totalitarian
>regimes as in China, the ex-Soviet Union and all the Peoples States of
>Asia and Africa.

I'm not sure if that's meant to be sarcastic, but if it is then just
discard the term "right-wing conservative" and suggest a better one.
I'm basically talking about the type of person who likes to restrict
the freedom of other people. I don't care what excuses or lies they
use to justify why they do it nor if they misrepresent themselves
early on as rebels fighting for freedom and then later become giant
hypocrites.

BubbaGump writes:

> I'm not sure if that's meant to be sarcastic, but if it is then just
> discard the term "right-wing conservative" and suggest a better one.
> I'm basically talking about the type of person who likes to restrict
> the freedom of other people.

There are just as many liberals who want to do that as conservatives.

In fact, most people in positions of authority want to control others and
limit their freedoms. That's what attracts them to positions of authority.
Such positions, by their very nature, attract all the control freaks in the
world. Politics and law enforcement are typical domains that fall under this
heading.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bmml139a9k8crqm5uhfbgqvmuv0dijgpl7@4ax.com...
> BubbaGump writes:
>
>> I'm not sure if that's meant to be sarcastic, but if it is then just
>> discard the term "right-wing conservative" and suggest a better one.
>> I'm basically talking about the type of person who likes to restrict
>> the freedom of other people.
>
> There are just as many liberals who want to do that as conservatives.

I think you need to reappraise your use of the word 'liberal' here.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

william.black@hotmail.co.uk (William Black) wrote in
news:evfkjm$6cc$1@news.freedom2surf.net:

>
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bmml139a9k8crqm5uhfbgqvmuv0dijgpl7@4ax.com...
>> BubbaGump writes:
>>
>>> I'm not sure if that's meant to be sarcastic, but if it is then
>>> just discard the term "right-wing conservative" and suggest a
>>> better one. I'm basically talking about the type of person who
>>> likes to restrict the freedom of other people.
>>
>> There are just as many liberals who want to do that as
>> conservatives.
>
> I think you need to reappraise your use of the word 'liberal' here.

Friedrich Hayek explaining his use of the word "liberal"
in the foreword of his book "The Road to Serfdom":

"I use throughout the term 'liberal' in the original,
nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current [1944] in
Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the
opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftist
movements in this country, helped by the muddle-headedness of many
who really believe in liberty, that 'liberal' has come to mean the
advocacy of almost every kind of government control."

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns990E50F0B1EA2VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
> william.black@hotmail.co.uk (William Black) wrote in
> news:evfkjm$6cc$1@news.freedom2surf.net:
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bmml139a9k8crqm5uhfbgqvmuv0dijgpl7@4ax.com...
>>> BubbaGump writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if that's meant to be sarcastic, but if it is then
>>>> just discard the term "right-wing conservative" and suggest a
>>>> better one. I'm basically talking about the type of person who
>>>> likes to restrict the freedom of other people.
>>>
>>> There are just as many liberals who want to do that as
>>> conservatives.
>>
>> I think you need to reappraise your use of the word 'liberal' here.
>
> Friedrich Hayek explaining his use of the word "liberal"
> in the foreword of his book "The Road to Serfdom":

Hayek was a head case who needed locking up.

Why on earth do people on Usenet insist on quoting the sort of academic who
needs shooting rather than listening to?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

william.black@hotmail.co.uk (William Black) wrote in
news:evgeei$mjs$1@news.freedom2surf.net:

> Hayek was a head case who needed locking up.
>
> Why on earth do people on Usenet insist on quoting the sort of
> academic who needs shooting rather than listening to?

Locked up? Needs shooting?

Now, that's interesting.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

Re: Soap aboard aircraft.

It is permitted and could be broad aboard in plain view, even the "soap on a
rope" hung about your next.

Fortunately, since there are no showers in which you could might drop your
soap, thus eliminating the risk of HIV transmission.

Of course, there's still the risk of picking up a dose of clap from a toilet
seat, contact caused by an over-reaction to tainted water in the galley

On the other hand, couldn't a pilot struck by a passenger gone bonkers be
expected to cuss, maybe just a little bit.

BubbaGump writes:

> It's not human nature unless you're a right-wing conservative.

It is consistent irrespective of political leanings. Liberals like to control
others just as much, they just do it in a different way. Conservatives
acknowledge that they wish to control, liberals deny it ... but both groups
want to control.

> Personally, the only restriction I ever put on people is that they
> leave me alone. Even when I give advice to people, I don't want them
> to do what I say. I want them to explore the pros and cons on each
> side and think for themselves.

That's a good philosophy.

> Speaking of restrictions, TSA restrictions are bullshit. I think
> they're mainly a placebo to make the idiots of America feel like
> they're being protected by some force greater than themselves, similar
> to the color-coded terror alert system and religion.

Yes. Real security is the security you don't see. Unfortunately, I'm not
convinced that there is any real security in place.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:12:46 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com>
wrote:

>BubbaGump writes:
>
>> It's not human nature unless you're a right-wing conservative.
>
>It is consistent irrespective of political leanings. Liberals like to control
>others just as much, they just do it in a different way. Conservatives
>acknowledge that they wish to control, liberals deny it ... but both groups
>want to control.

Well, of course, if you break down a word to its root meaning then it
can apply to anything and mean nothing. Heightened airport security
restricts our ability to carry things on board and frees out ability
to remain alive. Lowered airport security frees our ability to carry
things on board and restricts our ability to remain alive.

There is one important difference: choice. I'm not sure if
"conservative" or "liberal" are the right words, but there are two
types of people. One type leans towards restricting the freedom of
the individual because this type thinks they know better, while the
other leans towards freeing the individual to choose his or own
destiny. I would like it if we had the choice of an airline or two
with really low security restrictions.

BubbaGump writes:

> Heightened airport security
> restricts our ability to carry things on board and frees out ability
> to remain alive.

Well, that's half-right. It restricts our ability to carry things on board.

> Lowered airport security frees our ability to carry
> things on board and restricts our ability to remain alive.

It all depends on what kind of security it is. Unfortunately, the emphasis is
almost always on bogus security--the kind that is highly visible and
bothersome--and almost never on _effective_ security, the kind that is
discreet and effective.

> There is one important difference: choice. I'm not sure if
> "conservative" or "liberal" are the right words, but there are two
> types of people. One type leans towards restricting the freedom of
> the individual because this type thinks they know better, while the
> other leans towards freeing the individual to choose his or own
> destiny.

Not so. The only difference I've seen is that conservatives readily admit
that they want to control others because they think they know best, whereas
liberals claim that they need to control others "for the common good," which,
by a strange coincidence, always exactly matches what the liberals want people
to do.

> I would like it if we had the choice of an airline or two
> with really low security restrictions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Apr 10, 7:32 am, BubbaGump <BubbaGump@localhost> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:12:46 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >BubbaGump writes:
>
> >> It's not human nature unless you're a right-wing conservative.
>
> >It is consistent irrespective of political leanings. Liberals like to control
> >others just as much, they just do it in a different way. Conservatives
> >acknowledge that they wish to control, liberals deny it ... but both groups
> >want to control.
>
> Well, of course, if you break down a word to its root meaning then it
> can apply to anything and mean nothing. Heightened airport security
> restricts our ability to carry things on board and frees out ability
> to remain alive. Lowered airport security frees our ability to carry
> things on board and restricts our ability to remain alive.
>
> There is one important difference: choice. I'm not sure if
> "conservative" or "liberal" are the right words, but there are two
> types of people. One type leans towards restricting the freedom of
> the individual because this type thinks they know better,

Which is the stance that the Left (or Liberal) in the US takes. (Look
at Social Security, government controlled health care, welfare states,
"cradle to grave" government support of people, etc.)

> while the other leans towards freeing the individual to choose his or own
> destiny.

Which is the stance of the Right in the US. (individual retirement
accounts, minimal welfare, low taxes, etc.)

> I would like it if we had the choice of an airline or two
> with really low security restrictions.

Not me. You're missing one point. You can argue as to whether or not
you need a "Nanny" government telling you how to invest for your
retirement or controlling what schools you send your children to or
telling the schools what curriculum they must have or trying to
control your health care. Or you can argue as to whether or not the
wealthy should be allowed to "do their own thing" and did the poor
cause their own problems and is the government the problem rather than
the solution.

But those arguments miss one fundamental point. There are people on
this planet that simply don't care about any of that. They have a
fanatic agenda and they feel that they have the right to murder people
of either persuasion (or no persuasion) in order to "prove their
point". We *ALL* need to be protected from them. The security we have
is a hassle and of limited benefit. But I'd venture to guess that had
their been no security at least a dozen planes would have been
hijacked or knocked out of the sky in the past couple of years. And I
might have been on one of them. Or my children.

"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:4btk13lvpuphcid28vgq4jd1v06epcqvgo@4ax.com...
> In message <blrk139hcjr69u6pnnbvafbqica9tj9ks6@4ax.com> BubbaGump
> <BubbaGump@localhost> wrote:
>
> >Hotel bars of soap are small, and if they're the wrong brand then they
> >might irritate my skin. I like my soap. Will I be suspected as a
> >terrorist if I try to carry-on soap?
>
> Why not check it?
>
> Chances are not, but if you approach them up front and say "is this
> allowed" rather then look like you're sneaking it, the worst that will
> happen is that you'll be asked to discard it.
> --
> Insert something clever here.

A bar of soap in a sock makes a rather formidable weapon; much like a
leather 'sap'.

"Newby" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:131laprne3jn155@corp.supernews.com...

> A bar of soap in a sock makes a rather formidable weapon; much like a
> leather 'sap'.

Nothing like as good a weapon as a bottle of duty free whisky (yes, you
still can get booze in glass bottles in duty free areas) smashed on
something and held by the neck...

Although I'm told that champagne bottles make better daggers...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.