Never, ever, sleep on a flight again (non-bb)

[CarolinaStro]

http://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/2008/03/woman-files-law.html

[otterjb]

Wow, sick.

My worst flight: having to transport my girlfriend's cat on a cross country flight. Took the cat onto the plane, because she was nervous about sending her with cargo. She meowed the entire flight. I was sitting in the middle seat, a big person on my right and a business-man on my left, a beaten down mother with two kids right behind us, the kids on some sort of perscribed speed kicking and punching everything, pushing the attendee button over and over again. The guy next to me asked how many kittens I had brought onto the flight, being completely serious. Those hours were completely awful.

[jonbloozy]

http://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/2008/03/woman-files-law.html

I thought I had it rough when I sat next to a toddler with a bad dirty diaper on a full three-hour flight. 

Guess it's all about perspective.

[matadorph]

Okay, which one of you wiseasses posted as Harry P Ness in the comments section?

Seriously, who hasn't masturbated on a sleeping woman on a plane? I mean, is that wrong? Should he not have done that? They should post signs stating that this is not allowed if they don't want people to do this. What is this world coming to when you can't masturbate on a sleeping woman on a plane? Sad.

Posted by Harry P. Ness

[Limey]

Shouldn't she be suing the man who spoodged in her hair?  If he'd barfed on her, instead of jizzed, are AA liable for that too?

[CarolinaStro]

Shouldn't she be suing the man who spoodged in her hair?  If he'd barfed on her, instead of jizzed, are AA liable for that too?

I guess you always sue whomever has the money.  I think it is an amendment to the Constitution or something...

[Kent's Moustache]

Shouldn't she be suing the man who spoodged in her hair?  If he'd barfed on her, instead of jizzed, are AA liable for that too?

In her lawsuit, the jury will be permitted to consider the culpability of the "assailant" along with the alleged cuplability of AA (i.e., even if a jury were to determine that AA was negligent, then they jury will still be asked to apportion responsibility between AA and the "assailant" in percentages that sum to 100%).

Assuming that AA's lawyers tend to their business, anyway.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Oh, I think the justice system will handle the "assailant" just fine.  Doesn't he now qualify as a sexual offender?  Maybe I'm being overly optimistic in thinking that will be his label for the rest of his life...

[Limey]

Oh, I think the justice system will handle the "assailant" just fine.  Doesn't he now qualify as a sexual offender?  Maybe I'm being overly optimistic in thinking that will be his label for the rest of his life...

Tattooing "Jizz Thrower" on his forehead would be a start.

[Limey]

In her lawsuit, the jury will be permitted to consider the culpability of the "assailant" along with the alleged cuplability of AA (i.e., even if a jury were to determine that AA was negligent, then they jury will still be asked to apportion responsibility between AA and the "assailant" in percentages that sum to 100%).

Assuming that AA's lawyers tend to their business, anyway.

I think AA's culpability needs to be zero.  As someone who flies a lot, I do not want to be restricted to staying in my seat unless I have permission to visit the bathroom, while escorted by an airline employee, to ensure that I am not "endangering" other passengers...which is the knock on effect when lawsuits such as this gain traction.

[Bench]

I think AA's culpability needs to be zero. 

I would say we need to know more facts. As a common carrier airlines have a heightened duty to protect their passengers. Part of that duty is basic supervision of their behavior. If AA failed to comply with that basic duty, they should be liable. It is their responsibility to keep their passengers free from harm.

To me, though, the story just doesn't sound right. There's not a whole lot of privacy in coach. I just can't imagine anyone getting away with jacking off on a plane so indiscreetly as to shoot a copious amount of jizz onto their neighbor - and then begin again - without somebody else noticing. But, it evidently happened that way. I guess being a red-eye it was a pretty empty flight and most folks slept through it. Still, it sounds crazy.

[matadorph]

I think AA's culpability needs to be zero.  As someone who flies a lot, I do not want to be restricted to staying in my seat unless I have permission to visit the bathroom, while escorted by an airline employee, to ensure that I am not "endangering" other passengers...which is the knock on effect when lawsuits such as this gain traction.

Well, what would you say if your 21-yr-old daughter lived in an apartment complex and management neglected to maintain the basic security measures required in her lease, resulting in some crazy perv breaking into her apartment and ejaculating in her face? Isn't the apartment complex liable for failing to live up to its obligation to the tenant even though she was assaulted by a third party? According to the Texas Supreme Court, it may be.

I think you could draw an analogy here. American Airlines is responsible for the security of its planes. The airline must maintain their planes in such a way that ordinary care would protect others from foreseeable criminal acts on the premises by a third party. Whether ordinary care was taken and whether it was foreseeable that a passenger could expose himself to another and jizz in her hair is a matter of facts we're not privy to. Still, this isn't as far-fetched a case as you'd think.

[Limey]

To me, though, the story just doesn't sound right. There's not a whole lot of privacy in coach. I just can't imagine anyone getting away with jacking off on a plane so indiscreetly as to shoot a copious amount of jizz onto their neighbor - and then begin again - without somebody else noticing. But, it evidently happened that way. I guess being a red-eye it was a pretty empty flight and most folks slept through it. Still, it sounds crazy.

Red eye?  I thought it just went in her hair.

[Limey]

Well, what would you say if your 21-yr-old daughter lived in an apartment complex and management neglected to maintain the basic security measures required in her lease, resulting in some crazy perv breaking into her apartment and ejaculating in her face? Isn't the apartment complex liable for failing to live up to its obligation to the tenant even though she was assaulted by a third party? According to the Texas Supreme Court, it may be.

Your analogy is as hyperbolic as it is irrelevant.  As far as I'm aware, passengers are at liberty to switch seats on most airlines, and certainly on AA (I've done it).  So the fact that this perv ended up next to the victim is not any failure in duty of care by the airline.  That's totally different to an landlord being lax enough to allow someone to break in to an apartment.

As I asked before: what if the guy had simply barfed on her, or sneezed or coughed.  He's still assaulting her with bodily emissions, just not ones that elicit such a disgusted response.  But would the airline still be liable?

I think you could draw an analogy here. American Airlines is responsible for the security of its planes. The airline must maintain their planes in such a way that ordinary care would protect others from foreseeable criminal acts on the premises by a third party. Whether ordinary care was taken and whether it was foreseeable that a passenger could expose himself to another and jizz in her hair is a matter of facts we're not privy to. Still, this isn't as far-fetched a case as you'd think.

So what should they do now?  Install jizz-screens between every seat?  Was that act even foreseeable (by a reasonable person)?  Sometimes bad people do bad things to other people, and it's no one's fault except the bad person's.

[Lefty]

As I asked before: what if the guy had simply barfed on her, or sneezed or coughed.  He's still assaulting her with bodily emissions, just not ones that elicit such a disgusted response.  But would the airline still be liable?

Doesn't the illegality in public of 1 of the 4 bodily emissions play into this at all?  Or that the other 3 are involuntary?

[Bench]

Doesn't the illegality in public of 1 of the 4 bodily emissions play into this at all?  Or that the other 3 are involuntary?

There's no assault if there's no intent.

[Limey]

Doesn't the illegality in public of 1 of the 4 bodily emissions play into this at all?  Or that the other 3 are involuntary?

The guy was arrested.

[Limey]

There's no assault if there's no intent.

Say someone sits next to you on a plane and, at some point during the flight, punches you as hard as he can in the ear.  Airline to blame?

[matadorph]

Say someone sits next to you on a plane and, at some point during the flight, punches you as hard as he can in the ear.  Airline to blame?

If it was just some random act that came outta nowhere, of course not. However, if he did anything that a reasonable person would consider an indication of a threat to commit an act of violence and the flight attendants failed to respond accordingly, then yes, the airline may be liable for its part.

[Bench]

Say someone sits next to you on a plane and, at some point during the flight, punches you as hard as he can in the ear.  Airline to blame?

Probably not. But if he did so over the course of a long period of time and the airline did nothing, then yes, the airline might be to blame.

[matadorph]

Your analogy is as hyperbolic as it is irrelevant.  As far as I'm aware, passengers are at liberty to switch seats on most airlines, and certainly on AA (I've done it).  So the fact that this perv ended up next to the victim is not any failure in duty of care by the airline.  That's totally different to an landlord being lax enough to allow someone to break in to an apartment.

As I asked before: what if the guy had simply barfed on her, or sneezed or coughed.  He's still assaulting her with bodily emissions, just not ones that elicit such a disgusted response.  But would the airline still be liable?

So what should they do now?  Install jizz-screens between every seat?  Was that act even foreseeable (by a reasonable person)?  Sometimes bad people do bad things to other people, and it's no one's fault except the bad person's.

You may think it's hyperbolic and irrelevant, but it all depends on facts we don't have. Is AA aware of prior acts (i.e. exposure of genitaliia) by passengers that may satisfy the foreseeability requirement? Keep in mind, the act doesn't have to be foreseen exactly as it happened (jizz in the hair), but rather of a general nature that foreseeability could apply under the circumstances.

This has little to do with the passenger seating arrangement, Limey. The issue is whether the flight attendants acted properly in maintaining the security of the plane.

[Limey]

If it was just some random act that came outta nowhere, of course not. [Crabbing deleted]

Bingo.

[Bench]

Bingo.

I think this is a pretty fact intensive scenario and we don't have any of the facts.

[Andyzipp]

This has little to do with the passenger seating arrangement, Limey. The issue is whether the flight attendants acted properly in maintaining the security of the plane.

They're fucking airwaitresses.  They're about as responsible for security as my waiter last night was responsible for the security of the Chili's I was in.

[Limey]

Probably not. [Crabbing deleted]

Bingo.

[Limey]

I think this is a pretty fact intensive scenario and we don't have any of the facts.

Agreed.

I'd like to know if she's even considered suing the dude.

[Limey]

This has little to do with the passenger seating arrangement, Limey. The issue is whether the flight attendants acted properly in maintaining the security of the plane.

Which goes back to my original premise, that this crap leads to us all being strapped in like we're Hannibal Lecter for fear of lawsuits arising from what one unrestrained passenger may do to another.

[Limey]

You may think it's hyperbolic and irrelevant, but it all depends on facts we don't have.

Comparing an aeroplane to an apartment complex is irrelevant.  Using my fictitious daughter as the victim is hyperbolic.  Facts didn't seem to come into it.

[Limey]

Some facts:

Can't find anything on AA's website, but Continental says this in its standard contract of carriage:

CO shall not be liable for any death, injury, delay, loss or other damage of whatsoever nature (hereafter referred to collectively as “damage”) arising out of or in connection with carriage or other services performed by CO, unless such damage is proven to have been caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CO and there has been no contributory negligence on the part of the Passenger.

Airlines have good legal precedent for limiting liability in all sorts of areas.  This might be one of them.

[Bench]

I'd like to know if she's even considered suing the dude.

I assume she did. Why wouldn't she?

[Bench]

Some facts:

Can't find anything on AA's website, but Continental says this in its standard contract of carriage:

Airlines have good legal precedent for limiting liability in all sorts of areas.  This might be one of them.

I can't figure out how to quote your quote, but that disclaimer arguably wouldn't apply to this situation.

[Limey]

I assume she did. Why wouldn't she?

Wasn't discussed in the article.  Unless the perp is independently wealthy, then he's got nothing to go for (any insurance would be negated by the illegality of the act).  Better to go after the airline's deep pockets, ask for a big settlement for emotional distress, have them be judged partially liable and get a partial judgment of a big number.  The lawyer wins, the victim still has nightmares about being jizzed on and air travel becomes more fucked up for everyone.

Personally, I think her suit against the airline is going nowhere.  If they can limit liability for deaths caused by their equipment falling out of the sky, this should be a breeze.

[Arky Vaughan]

Many airlines have a policy of not placing unaccompanied minors next to an adult male passenger.

[Bench]

Wasn't discussed in the article.  Unless the perp is independently wealthy, then he's got nothing to go for (any insurance would be negated by the illegality of the act).  Better to go after the airline's deep pockets, ask for a big settlement for emotional distress, have them be judged partially liable and get a partial judgment of a big number.  The lawyer wins, the victim still has nightmares about being jizzed on and air travel becomes more fucked up for everyone.

Personally, I think her suit against the airline is going nowhere.  If they can limit liability for deaths caused by their equipment falling out of the sky, this should be a breeze.

It's not an either/or thing. I'm sure she sued both, but obviously the airlines have the deep pockets and are the bigger target. Still, you sue the guy also, regardless of what he has to go for.

The claim against the airline sounds like a shot in the dark now, but there may be some really bad facts floating around out there. We just don't know right now. Also, I highly doubt a case like this would have any discernable impact on the deteriorating quality of air travel.

[Limey]

I can't figure out how to quote your quote, but that disclaimer arguably wouldn't apply to this situation.

Copy and paste.  It's the only way to be sure.

If you're referring to the definition of "damage" not being wide enough, I think it is.  It's grouped with "death" and "injury", so it refers to harm to a person, and it is expanded to embrace anything "of whatsoever nature" which should be broad enough to include fly-by spoodgings.

At least, that's how I'd argue it.

[Limey]

Many airlines have a policy of not placing unaccompanied minors next to an adult male passenger.

Cool.  This was a 21-year old woman who wasn't placed next to the man by the airline.  He moved to that seat.

[Arky Vaughan]

I think this is a pretty fact intensive scenario and we don't have any of the facts.

Agreed. The airline likely can't be found liable because of what the guy did. The airline may be found liable if the airline is found to have been negligent in preventing the guy from doing so. That depends on a lot of facts that aren't revealed here.

[Arky Vaughan]

Cool.  This was a 21-year old woman.

Right. I wasn't implying that such a rule applied here.

But it does show that the airline does take steps to reduce its liability for something that might happen on a plane between two passengers. Granted, the airline's liability might be deemed to have a heightened obligation where the passenger is an unaccompanied minor.

[Limey]

Also, I highly doubt a case like this would have any discernable impact on the deteriorating quality of air travel.

If this goes badly wrong for the airline, you'll be nailed to your seat for the duration.

[Arky Vaughan]

It's not an either/or thing. I'm sure she sued both, but obviously the airlines have the deep pockets and are the bigger target. Still, you sue the guy also, regardless of what he has to go for.

The claim against the airline sounds like a shot in the dark now, but there may be some really bad facts floating around out there. We just don't know right now. Also, I highly doubt a case like this would have any discernable impact on the deteriorating quality of air travel.

My coworker just came back from a trip where the guy next to him farted the entire time -- all the way from Japan to Houston. Any liablity there?

[Arky Vaughan]

If this goes badly wrong for the airline, you'll be nailed to your seat for the duration.

Maybe, maybe not. It's virtually certain that this isn't the first time an airline has been named in a lawsuit for something one passenger did to another.

[Limey]

My coworker just came back from a trip where the guy next to him farted the entire time -- all the way from Japan to Houston. Any liablity there?

Happened to me coming back from London (being farted at, not me farting).  Bloke was asleep the whole way and had no idea presumably.

[Limey]

Maybe, maybe not. It's virtually certain that this isn't the first time an airline has been named in a lawsuit for something one passenger did to another.

On the other hand, I could use this to my advantage.  I could knock Mrs Limey up in the bathroom, and make the airline pay for the kid's food and board etc.

[Bench]

Copy and paste.  It's the only way to be sure.

If you're referring to the definition of "damage" not being wide enough, I think it is.  It's grouped with "death" and "injury", so it refers to harm to a person, and it is expanded to embrace anything "of whatsoever nature" which should be broad enough to include fly-by spoodgings.

At least, that's how I'd argue it.

OK.

"CO shall not be liable for any death, injury, delay, loss or other damage of whatsoever nature (hereafter referred to collectively as “damage”) arising out of or in connection with carriage or other services performed by CO, unless such damage is proven to have been caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CO and there has been no contributory negligence on the part of the Passenger."

First, this just refers to the language: Any injuries here would be caused by the sole negligence of the airline (the masturbator was not negligent, but rather an intentional tortfeasor, and thus his acts are not and cannot be covered by this language*). There was no contributory negligence on the part of the Passenger, she was innocently sleeping.

That doesn't even get into what kinds of liability the law allows a party to waive. For instance, you might walk into a bar that as a posted policy of "not responsible for the acts of non-employees", but if two random guys drag you into the corner a beat you into a pulp as the proprietor does nothing, the bar owner is not automatically shielded by the disclaimer.

*This is purely and simply torturing plain english, which is surprisingly effective. Note that it doesn't say the injury was solely caused by the airline's negligence. Rather, it applies to when the airline is the only negligent party. One could easily argue that based on the construction of the sentence "sole" modifies "negligence" and not "caused." Again, these waivers are of dubious quality to begin with.

[BudGirl]

Maybe, maybe not. It's virtually certain that this isn't the first time an airline has been named in a lawsuit for something one passenger did to another.

Didn't that young "lady" sue Southwest a year or so ago because they made her change her clothes?  Of course, she proved her "point" when she flashed her peakachoo on national television the next day or so.

I'd be beyond pissed if some unknown male did that to me.  I would want some recourse.  A couple free flights or something.  I'm too lazy to sue though.

[Limey]

OK.

"CO shall not be liable for any death, injury, delay, loss or other damage of whatsoever nature (hereafter referred to collectively as “damage”) arising out of or in connection with carriage or other services performed by CO, unless such damage is proven to have been caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CO and there has been no contributory negligence on the part of the Passenger."

First, this just refers to the language: Any injuries here would be caused by the sole negligence of the airline (the masturbator was not negligent, but rather an intentional tortfeasor, and thus his acts are not and cannot be covered by this language*). There was no contributory negligence on the part of the Passenger, she was innocently sleeping.

That doesn't even get into what kinds of liability the law allows a party to waive. For instance, you might walk into a bar that as a posted policy of "not responsible for the acts of non-employees", but if two random guys drag you into the corner a beat you into a pulp as the proprietor does nothing, the bar owner is not automatically shielded by the disclaimer.

*This is purely and simply torturing plain english, which is surprisingly effective. Note that it doesn't say the injury was solely caused by the airline's negligence. Rather, it applies to when the airline is the only negligent party. Again, these waivers are of dubious quality to begin with.

The bar analogy doesn't work because it seems that people might notice.  In this case, nobody, including the cabin crew, all the other passengers and, of course, the victim herself, noticed.

If there's no negligence on the part of the airline, there's no basis for suit, regardless of whether the victim was contributorily(?) negligent or not.

[Bench]

The bar analogy doesn't work because it seems that people might notice.  In this case, nobody, including the cabin crew, all the other passengers and, of course, the victim herself, noticed.

If there's no negligence on the part of the airline, there's no basis for suit, regardless of whether the victim was contributorily(?) negligent or not.

Maybe there was nobody else in the bar and the barkeep stepped out for a smoke break or to argue with his girlfriend? What if on red eye flights AA had a written policy to increase the number of times flight attendants patrolled the aisles and the flight attendants failed to do so on this flight? What if AA recieved 75 similar complaints over the last few years but failed to create or implement such a policy?

The point is that there are a lot of facts that we don't know. You seem to be ready to call out others for "crabbing" but you seem to have a very concrete view of what the "facts" of this case are. We simply don't know.

[Limey]

More from CO's contract:

CO shall not be liable for any damage  arising out of CO’s compliance with any laws, government regulations, orders, rules, requirements or security directives or as a result of a Passenger’s failure to comply with such laws, government regulations, orders, rules, requirements or security directives or as a result of Passenger’s reliance on advice provided by CO regarding such laws, regulations, orders, rules, requirements or security directives.

The fact that chummy was arrested is another layer to the airline's defense.

[Bench]

More from CO's contract:

The fact that chummy was arrested is another layer to the airline's defense.

Passenger with a capital "P" probably means the girl who got gizzed on, as the defined party in the carrier contract.

The airline has plenty of defenses, primarily that it could not have reasonably foreseen and did not proximately cause the injury to the girl. However, there's no basis to absolutely discount at this point any merit the suit might have.

[MRaup]

More from CO's contract:

The fact that cummy was arrested is another layer to the airline's defense.

FIFY

[Limey]

Passenger with a capital "P" probably means the girl who got gizzed on, as the defined party in the carrier contract.

The airline has plenty of defenses, primarily that it could not have reasonably foreseen and did not proximately cause the injury to the girl. However, there's no basis to absolutely discount at this point any merit the suit might have.

"Passenger", with a capital "P", but preceeded by "a", means (to me) "any passenger", not just the victim.

[Bench]

"Passenger", with a capital "P", but preceeded by "a", means (to me) "any passenger", not just the victim.

Possibly. But the fact that it is capitalized means its a defined term, and without the definition, like so many other things about this case, we just don't know.

[Limey]

Possibly. But the fact that it is capitalized means its a defined term, and without the definition, like so many other things about this case, we just don't know.

Defined or not, its still the indefinite article.  So they have no liability to the ticket-holder for the law-breaking activity of "a Passenger".

[Bench]

Defined or not, its still the indefinite article.  So they have no liability to the ticket-holder for the law-breaking activity of "a Passenger".

I would not hinge my argument on an out-of-context indefinite article (especially because this is a Continental terms of service and not an AA one). The point is, there is a lot of investigation into the matter.

Also, whatever the disclaimer or waiver might read, it is not an absolute defense. You can't just abdicate any and all liability no matter what happens. You can't waive gross negligence, which is what the claim for punitive damages is based on. That language might not be worth the paper it's written on.

[Arky Vaughan]

Defined or not, its still the indefinite article.  So they have no liability to the ticket-holder for the law-breaking activity of "a Passenger".

But just because they write it doesn't make it enforceable. Again, they're serious enough about their potential exposure to liability for mistreatment of unaccompanied minors that they tend to want to seat them next to a grandmotherly old lady rather than next to Paul Reubens.

I'm not saying AA is at fault here, and I tend to think people go after deep pockets rather than who's primarly at fault, but that doesn't mean that AA should necessary get off here.

[Bench]

. . . but that doesn't mean that AA should necessary get off here.

Pun intended?

[Arky Vaughan]

Pun intended?

Absolutely.

I could also have said the airline was going to get beat. Even after their lawyers shoot their wad in court, they'd still be in a sticky situation.

[OregonStrosFan]

Can't sleep on planes, gotta watch yourself at Target... Geez...

As a side note, way too early to tell the merit (ot lack thereof) of the AA suit.  There remains the possibility that AA could end up with egg on its face before this ones all said and done. 

[Limey]

I would not hinge my argument on an out-of-context indefinite article (especially because this is a Continental terms of service and not an AA one). The point is, there is a lot of investigation into the matter.

Are we really going to debate what the definition of "a" is?

Seriously, facts are most definitely what's needed.  Meanwhile, I'm of to Paris - the hair-jizzing capital of Europe!

[Gizzmonic]

Are we really going to debate what the definition of "a" is?

Seriously, facts are most definitely what's needed.  Meanwhile, I'm of to Paris - the hair-jizzing capital of Europe!

Is that what it says on the big sign at the city gates?

[matadorph]

They're fucking airwaitresses.  They're about as responsible for security as my waiter last night was responsible for the security of the Chili's I was in.

I wasn't referring to the kind of security expected of the TSA or, say, air marshals. I was referring to the obligation the airline has to its passengers to uphold whatever reasonable safety standards would be expected of its flight attendants in those circumstances. Were the flight attendants paying close enough attention to the passengers? Were they unavailable to the passengers for long stretches at a time? Were they not responsive because they were loafing on the job? And what is American's policy for flight attendants' duties when the cabin lights are dimmed and passengers are routinely sleeping? I have no idea, but I'd be willing to bet there's something in their training manual about policing passengers who want to join the Mile High Club. That could satisfy the foreseeability requirement under premises liability, no?

[ybbodeus]

With apologies to the offended young lady, I'll bet American will be forced to revisit its whole, "There's something special in the air," concept, huh? 

I mean, one can presume that the SNL team will come up with a, "There's something really special in the air," reset, if not, "There's something special in the hair....errrrrr....air."  Just watch. 

That seat-hopping, potty karate passenger should be caned.

[Andyzipp]

With apologies to the offended young lady, I'll bet American will be forced to revisit its whole, "There's something special in the air," concept, huh? 

I mean, one can presume that the SNL team will come up with a, "There's something really special in the air," reset, if not, "There's something special in the hair....errrrrr....air."  Just watch. 

That seat-hopping, potty karate passenger should be caned.

This is the best SNL can come up with these days...
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=229474

[otterjb]

About the small details of law minutiae: I knew that there was a good reason why I dropped out of law school. Life is too short, but I'm glad that there are people good at it.

That SNL skit wasn't very funny, but, Hot Rod, the movie with Andy Samburg, is so stupid that it's actually pretty funny, I thought. The dude from Deadwood is his dad, and his girl-interest is nice to look at. Worth a rental, but it's more of a Napoleon Dynamite-ish flick.

[Limey]

That SNL skit wasn't very funny, but, Hot Rod, the movie with Andy Samburg, is so stupid that it's actually pretty funny, I thought. The dude from Deadwood is his dad, and his girl-interest is nice to look at. Worth a rental, but it's more of a Napoleon Dynamite-ish flick.

The Flashdance parody followed by the World's longest tumble down a hillside is worth the cost of the rental.  You just need that, the opening bike stunt on endless loop and a sixer of 99.

[otterjb]

Most of the DVD extras are worth the watch too.

[Gleek]

With apologies to the offended young lady, I'll bet American will be forced to revisit its whole, "There's something special in the air," concept, huh? 

I mean, one can presume that the SNL team will come up with a, "There's something really special in the air," reset, if not, "There's something special in the hair....errrrrr....air."  Just watch. 

Cum fly the friendly skys?

[ybbodeus]

Was trying to come up with a reset for everyone here's favorite jewel from Continental, "...easier than stealing second on a wild pitch."  Alas, that one sucks all by itself.

[JimR]

Was trying to come up with a reset for everyone here's favorite jewel from Continental, "...easier than stealing second on a wild pitch."  Alas, that one sucks all by itself.

why?

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Doesn't the illegality in public of 1 of the 4 bodily emissions play into this at all?  Or that the other 3 are involuntary?

Okay, I don't know about your body but I got at least ten:

1. Urine
2. Feces
3. Semen
4. Blood
5. Saliva
6. Mucus
7. Pus
8. Vomit
9. Skin Oil
10. Tears

[JaxAstroFan]

Was the plane in the air at the time of said offense? If so, can't he be prosecuted for hijacking?

[Craig]

Okay, I don't know about your body but I got at least ten:

1. Urine
2. Feces
3. Semen
4. Blood
5. Saliva
6. Mucus
7. Pus
8. Vomit
9. Skin Oil
10. Tears

You can get all that free during Fan Appreciation Day at Shea Stadium.

[Andyzipp]

You can get all that free during Fan Appreciation Day at Shea Stadium.

Not necessarily in that order.  Although often the tears do come at the end.

[ybbodeus]

why?

Fair question.  I think the "hijacking" response above might give SOME insight; we're taking pot-shots at airlines and marketing all at the same time.  To further, I recall the putrid disdain for the "STEALING SECOND ON A WILD PITCH" discussions last year.  Even I knew that you TAKE second on a wild pitch versus STEALING the base.

I gather I'm teetering on the edge here between being  told, "Read more, post less" and "Read less, post never."  As the old comic frequently said, "You're a tough audience." 

Mama told me not to come....

[JimR]

Fair question.  I think the "hijacking" response above might give SOME insight; we're taking pot-shots at airlines and marketing all at the same time.  To further, I recall the putrid disdain for the "STEALING SECOND ON A WILD PITCH" discussions last year.  Even I knew that you TAKE second on a wild pitch versus STEALING the base.

I gather I'm teetering on the edge here between being  told, "Read more, post less" and "Read less, post never."  As the old comic frequently said, "You're a tough audience." 

Mama told me not to come....

if the runner breaks for second and the pitcher then throws a wild pitch, it is a stolen base.

[ybbodeus]

Thus completeth the lesson....again.

"Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

[JimR]

Thus completeth the lesson....again.

"Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

if he did not break for second before the pitch, it is not a stolen base.

[ybbodeus]

And the train rolls on....this isn't an anarcho-syndicalist commune, by chance, is it?

"I better put some ice on that."