<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Banned for life for being too pretty</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/</link>
	<description>Consumer advocate Christopher Elliott&#039;s site.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:25:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris (Amateur Traveler travel podcast)</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-2/#comment-16007</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris (Amateur Traveler travel podcast)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-16007</guid>
		<description>I live in fear of being banned for life because I am too attractive. ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I live in fear of being banned for life because I am too attractive. ;-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-2/#comment-11917</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 08:55:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-11917</guid>
		<description>Welly welly welly welly welly welly well. I guess I touched on a nerve Jen. Rather than personal attacks on a stranger whom you don&#039;t know at all, and cheesey cheap Forrest Gump-esque references, try making your point with some intelligence if you can. You only proved my point with the unwarranted extreme amount of venom directed at me personally, and you don&#039;t even know what I look like. I may be the elephant woman with a sense of fairness, for all you know. I feel so honored. I&#039;d like to thank God, my parents, all whom I have known, and the academy. Just for you Jen: IRONY ALERT! If you have any clue what that may be. I love people like you. You prove me correct.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welly welly welly welly welly welly well. I guess I touched on a nerve Jen. Rather than personal attacks on a stranger whom you don&#8217;t know at all, and cheesey cheap Forrest Gump-esque references, try making your point with some intelligence if you can. You only proved my point with the unwarranted extreme amount of venom directed at me personally, and you don&#8217;t even know what I look like. I may be the elephant woman with a sense of fairness, for all you know. I feel so honored. I&#8217;d like to thank God, my parents, all whom I have known, and the academy. Just for you Jen: IRONY ALERT! If you have any clue what that may be. I love people like you. You prove me correct.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-11779</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 18:17:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-11779</guid>
		<description>Should have added my mother&#039;s favorite saying &quot;pretty is as pretty does.&quot;  Just not the case with Mary or the two women.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Should have added my mother&#8217;s favorite saying &#8220;pretty is as pretty does.&#8221;  Just not the case with Mary or the two women.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-11778</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 17:47:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-11778</guid>
		<description>Wow, Mary, you read the article and already knew that these women were disccriminated against regarding the water.  It couldn&#039;t have been that the woman was asking for water before the door closed when service actually started. 

You remind me of an old saying around my house.  The only crazy people are the ones who think they&#039;re sane.  People who think they&#039;re crazy rarely are.  Same thing holds about those people who think they&#039;re pretty.  

Cry me a river.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, Mary, you read the article and already knew that these women were disccriminated against regarding the water.  It couldn&#8217;t have been that the woman was asking for water before the door closed when service actually started. </p>
<p>You remind me of an old saying around my house.  The only crazy people are the ones who think they&#8217;re sane.  People who think they&#8217;re crazy rarely are.  Same thing holds about those people who think they&#8217;re pretty.  </p>
<p>Cry me a river.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: P. Kindred</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-11773</link>
		<dc:creator>P. Kindred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 12:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-11773</guid>
		<description>Surely with those &quot;fabulous&quot; looks these two could have conned some poor schmuck into buying them a first class plane ticket.  Regardless of how you dress, look, act or smell in first class the attendants &quot;kiss your booty&quot; and treat you like royalty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely with those &#8220;fabulous&#8221; looks these two could have conned some poor schmuck into buying them a first class plane ticket.  Regardless of how you dress, look, act or smell in first class the attendants &#8220;kiss your booty&#8221; and treat you like royalty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-11650</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:32:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-11650</guid>
		<description>Wow. Just reading most of the remarks on this board makes me understand what I&#039;ve observed most of my life. Beautiful people are discriminated against. Or to be more accurate, decent looking people who are CONFIDENT about their appearance are treated like garbage. People who feel less confident like to try to bring people down to their level. Misery loves company. Sad, very sad. Nothing these two young women said came across as lying, spoiled or bitchy. What I saw was two ladies calmly telling their side of the story. I&#039;ve seen women and men who aren&#039;t as confident try to destroy a confident person&#039;s spirit my entire life. Don&#039;t pretend you don&#039;t know what I&#039;m talking about. I don&#039;t doubt for a second that the stewardess told the one lady to wait for the water, and I doubt it was because of the young woman&#039;s &quot;behavior&quot;. It seems to me that most of you aren&#039;t listening to these ladies with a fair mind. You see a youthful woman who likes her appearance, and BAM! You stop listening and get CATTY. The man who suggested this may be a guerilla style marketing campaign did make an interesting point, however. Whether any of this is true or not, it certainly has exposed a very ugly prejudice of our society. I always knew it was out there, but I had no idea how many of you stooped to this level. I&#039;m truly alarmed. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. On second thought, that might only make your attitudes even worse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow. Just reading most of the remarks on this board makes me understand what I&#8217;ve observed most of my life. Beautiful people are discriminated against. Or to be more accurate, decent looking people who are CONFIDENT about their appearance are treated like garbage. People who feel less confident like to try to bring people down to their level. Misery loves company. Sad, very sad. Nothing these two young women said came across as lying, spoiled or bitchy. What I saw was two ladies calmly telling their side of the story. I&#8217;ve seen women and men who aren&#8217;t as confident try to destroy a confident person&#8217;s spirit my entire life. Don&#8217;t pretend you don&#8217;t know what I&#8217;m talking about. I don&#8217;t doubt for a second that the stewardess told the one lady to wait for the water, and I doubt it was because of the young woman&#8217;s &#8220;behavior&#8221;. It seems to me that most of you aren&#8217;t listening to these ladies with a fair mind. You see a youthful woman who likes her appearance, and BAM! You stop listening and get CATTY. The man who suggested this may be a guerilla style marketing campaign did make an interesting point, however. Whether any of this is true or not, it certainly has exposed a very ugly prejudice of our society. I always knew it was out there, but I had no idea how many of you stooped to this level. I&#8217;m truly alarmed. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. On second thought, that might only make your attitudes even worse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 5 tips on what not to wear on a plane &#124; Optimized Executive</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-11649</link>
		<dc:creator>5 tips on what not to wear on a plane &#124; Optimized Executive</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:01:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-11649</guid>
		<description>[...] then, there have been a string of too-skimpy-to-fly incidents, including one in Burbank, Calif. and another in Tampa, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] then, there have been a string of too-skimpy-to-fly incidents, including one in Burbank, Calif. and another in Tampa, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John J. Tormey III, Esq.</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-9853</link>
		<dc:creator>John J. Tormey III, Esq.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-9853</guid>
		<description>According to press reports to date, no less than 6, perhaps more, commercial jet aircraft potentially carrying hundreds of passengers per trip and sometimes on multiple trips per day - had cracks in them. Had cracks in them. And people at the FAA, and Southwest, knew it. And the planes had cracks in them. And the flights continued thereafter, nonetheless. 

Never mind malfeasance. Never mind immorality. If those factual assessments are correct at minimum, then that should be attempted freaking murder. 

What is WRONG with the non-prosecutorial milque-toasts, who blog on-line and refuse to find fault with Southwest? When did standing up for the individual rights, dignity, and safety of citizens become so politically incorrect to them?

Oh yeah. I forgot. They are all Southwest employees, who, like their “Blogger Queen” compadre Paula Berg, were told or already expected by their ghoulish corporate employer to hit the blogosphere hard this past few days - to try to spin this horrific story to read as if there were never any safety problems that threatened the public - to fool the public, with blogging. Well, Southwest-“anonymous”-posters, YOU are the fools for thinking it wasn’t obvious to the rest of us. YOU are the reason that the laws governing perjury, exist. And as soon as ANY of you hack-corporate sycophants have the courage to identify yourselves by your full legal name and residence address, as well as your Southwest affiliation, then I expect that myself and a few friends will collaborate to give you a REAL working demonstration of how the perjury laws of the United States will further deflate your stupid Southwest publicity balloon FAST. It would be a distinct pleasure to bankrupt your morally-bereft airline, and I would do it just for the collar.

One pro-Southwest blogger suggested that the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves - that’s right – the same FAA “blame the victim” “strategy”. He suggested, how dare we criticize Southwest, when some of us are not the best drivers in the world. Of course, I don’t take hundreds of lives up in a jet-fueled airplane, and take money for doing it, most days of my life, or any days of my life. So the comparison with any of us drivers on an individual level, is a foolish one. But the blogger was correct about this much. Everyone, on an individual level, should take personal responsibility, not merely diffuse corporate responsibility, for ensuring the safety and well-being of others, especially the safety and well-being of youngsters on the road or in the skies. That soccer mom in the Windstar on her cell phone with no headphone, those two goombahs drag-racing through populated areas – they are all as accountable as a publicist who shills in cover-up of corporate malfeasance, or a federal “official” who looks the other way and takes the check. I am going to have an easier time popping those in the latter two categories, though, as they tend to leave paper trails.

Southwest’s next publicity “strategy”, its new brainstorm of spin-control, was the “Oh, you don’t know all the facts” strategy. “Wait for the facts to come out”. Memo to dutiful-tool-employees: EVERY TIME someone cites the authoritative representations made by a United States Congressman who chairs the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and whose Committee has been investigating Southwest and the FAA since the relevant events occurred in 2006-2007, just tell the people that, “Oh, no, YOU don’t have all the facts. Don’t go judging lest not ye be judged, ‘cause YOU don’t have all the facts”.

That’s funny. It’s also freaking moronic.

Southwest and FAA’s actions have been the subject of an ongoing Congressional investigation dating back to 2007 or perhaps even as early as 2006. More than enough facts came out through Saturday March 8, 2008, including during the videotaped and audiotaped Representative James Oberstar press conference now available on: 
www.cspan.org 
to make the judgment on Southwest very, very clear. In fact, I have never heard any government official being more precise or more specific about allegations against a malevolent private sector entity, ever before, than Congressman Oberstar in that videotaped and audiotaped press conference. Southwest would prefer that you never, ever watch that Oberstar press conference. That of course means, I trust, it will shortly find its way to: 
www.youtube.com

I weighed the events of the weekend carefully. Then, I realized - Representative Oberstar’s leadership on the Southwest Airlines debacle issue, as well as the unabashed past publicity balloons of Southwest’s “Blog Queen” Paula Berg which I read and laughed about, inspired me to myself register a new blog of my own this past weekend. You will find this new blog at:

http:/SouthwestAirlinesAlmostKilledYou.blogspot.com/

* * * * * 

I read some pretty funny other posts by Southwest employees using fake names, this past weekend, too. I loved it when I read that one poster thought Representative Oberstar should “defer” to the FAA and Southwest on this issue because, after all, they are the “experts” in aviation. That would be like “deferring” to your kidnap-captors because, after all, they are the “experts” in “captivity” - or like “deferring” to your executioner because, after all, he is the “expert” in “life and death matters”. 

Funny, funny stuff. It would be hysterical if it weren’t so transparent, and so malevolent. My advice to Southwest is, the next time you hire employees to blog for you en masse in time of crisis, at least make sure that they are decent writers, and at least make sure that you spend the money to give them good enough word-processors that contain spell-checking software. Seriously.

Mainly though, every time you read an anonymous post or blog on the topic of Southwest’s cracked planes and the investigation and scandal which has followed it, from this point forward - or a rarer post for which Southwest actually takes credit, if you can locate one – just please remember: in the words of the late Frank DeKova’s character Chief Wild Eagle, on the 1960’s television program “F Troop”:

“It is BALLOON!!!”

“It is BALLOON!!!!!”

Pop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to press reports to date, no less than 6, perhaps more, commercial jet aircraft potentially carrying hundreds of passengers per trip and sometimes on multiple trips per day &#8211; had cracks in them. Had cracks in them. And people at the FAA, and Southwest, knew it. And the planes had cracks in them. And the flights continued thereafter, nonetheless. </p>
<p>Never mind malfeasance. Never mind immorality. If those factual assessments are correct at minimum, then that should be attempted freaking murder. </p>
<p>What is WRONG with the non-prosecutorial milque-toasts, who blog on-line and refuse to find fault with Southwest? When did standing up for the individual rights, dignity, and safety of citizens become so politically incorrect to them?</p>
<p>Oh yeah. I forgot. They are all Southwest employees, who, like their “Blogger Queen” compadre Paula Berg, were told or already expected by their ghoulish corporate employer to hit the blogosphere hard this past few days &#8211; to try to spin this horrific story to read as if there were never any safety problems that threatened the public &#8211; to fool the public, with blogging. Well, Southwest-“anonymous”-posters, YOU are the fools for thinking it wasn’t obvious to the rest of us. YOU are the reason that the laws governing perjury, exist. And as soon as ANY of you hack-corporate sycophants have the courage to identify yourselves by your full legal name and residence address, as well as your Southwest affiliation, then I expect that myself and a few friends will collaborate to give you a REAL working demonstration of how the perjury laws of the United States will further deflate your stupid Southwest publicity balloon FAST. It would be a distinct pleasure to bankrupt your morally-bereft airline, and I would do it just for the collar.</p>
<p>One pro-Southwest blogger suggested that the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves &#8211; that’s right – the same FAA “blame the victim” “strategy”. He suggested, how dare we criticize Southwest, when some of us are not the best drivers in the world. Of course, I don’t take hundreds of lives up in a jet-fueled airplane, and take money for doing it, most days of my life, or any days of my life. So the comparison with any of us drivers on an individual level, is a foolish one. But the blogger was correct about this much. Everyone, on an individual level, should take personal responsibility, not merely diffuse corporate responsibility, for ensuring the safety and well-being of others, especially the safety and well-being of youngsters on the road or in the skies. That soccer mom in the Windstar on her cell phone with no headphone, those two goombahs drag-racing through populated areas – they are all as accountable as a publicist who shills in cover-up of corporate malfeasance, or a federal “official” who looks the other way and takes the check. I am going to have an easier time popping those in the latter two categories, though, as they tend to leave paper trails.</p>
<p>Southwest’s next publicity “strategy”, its new brainstorm of spin-control, was the “Oh, you don’t know all the facts” strategy. “Wait for the facts to come out”. Memo to dutiful-tool-employees: EVERY TIME someone cites the authoritative representations made by a United States Congressman who chairs the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and whose Committee has been investigating Southwest and the FAA since the relevant events occurred in 2006-2007, just tell the people that, “Oh, no, YOU don’t have all the facts. Don’t go judging lest not ye be judged, ‘cause YOU don’t have all the facts”.</p>
<p>That’s funny. It’s also freaking moronic.</p>
<p>Southwest and FAA’s actions have been the subject of an ongoing Congressional investigation dating back to 2007 or perhaps even as early as 2006. More than enough facts came out through Saturday March 8, 2008, including during the videotaped and audiotaped Representative James Oberstar press conference now available on:<br />
<a href="http://www.cspan.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.cspan.org</a><br />
to make the judgment on Southwest very, very clear. In fact, I have never heard any government official being more precise or more specific about allegations against a malevolent private sector entity, ever before, than Congressman Oberstar in that videotaped and audiotaped press conference. Southwest would prefer that you never, ever watch that Oberstar press conference. That of course means, I trust, it will shortly find its way to:<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com</a></p>
<p>I weighed the events of the weekend carefully. Then, I realized &#8211; Representative Oberstar’s leadership on the Southwest Airlines debacle issue, as well as the unabashed past publicity balloons of Southwest’s “Blog Queen” Paula Berg which I read and laughed about, inspired me to myself register a new blog of my own this past weekend. You will find this new blog at:</p>
<p>http:/SouthwestAirlinesAlmostKilledYou.blogspot.com/</p>
<p>* * * * * </p>
<p>I read some pretty funny other posts by Southwest employees using fake names, this past weekend, too. I loved it when I read that one poster thought Representative Oberstar should “defer” to the FAA and Southwest on this issue because, after all, they are the “experts” in aviation. That would be like “deferring” to your kidnap-captors because, after all, they are the “experts” in “captivity” &#8211; or like “deferring” to your executioner because, after all, he is the “expert” in “life and death matters”. </p>
<p>Funny, funny stuff. It would be hysterical if it weren’t so transparent, and so malevolent. My advice to Southwest is, the next time you hire employees to blog for you en masse in time of crisis, at least make sure that they are decent writers, and at least make sure that you spend the money to give them good enough word-processors that contain spell-checking software. Seriously.</p>
<p>Mainly though, every time you read an anonymous post or blog on the topic of Southwest’s cracked planes and the investigation and scandal which has followed it, from this point forward &#8211; or a rarer post for which Southwest actually takes credit, if you can locate one – just please remember: in the words of the late Frank DeKova’s character Chief Wild Eagle, on the 1960’s television program “F Troop”:</p>
<p>“It is BALLOON!!!”</p>
<p>“It is BALLOON!!!!!”</p>
<p>Pop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John J. Tormey III, Esq.</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-9772</link>
		<dc:creator>John J. Tormey III, Esq.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:07:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-9772</guid>
		<description>The first page of Google results about Southwest Airlines flack Paula Berg tells us this:

http://www.blogsouthwest.com/2007/06/15/behind-the-scenes-blog-queen/

Now, never mind &quot;wacky&quot;, and &quot;off-the-wall&quot; - &quot;behind-the-scenes Blog Queen&quot; and &quot;Nuts about Southwest&quot; say it all for me.

So, to Paula Berg of Southwest Airlines, the airline company’s &quot;behind-the-scenes Blog Queen&quot;, who says, regarding the events of March 6-7, 2008, and the now-record US$10,200,000 in fines racked up by Southwest: 

&quot;...this situation was never and is not now a safety of flight issue&quot;. 
Nonsense, Paula. Cracks in airplanes? Nonsense, Paula. 

I&#039;ve been around publicists and other entertainment folk for over 20 years, and I have heard better publicity emanating from self-plugging screenwriters on acid.

And, Paula, as for: 

&quot;[t]he FAA approved our actions and considered the matter closed as of April 2007&quot;.

Nonsense, Paula.

It&#039;s not &quot;closed&quot;, until WE the PUBLIC say it is closed! Take that back to your superiors for me - and tell them that we are just getting started.

Oh – and, congratulations on staying behind the scenes.

John J. Tormey III, Esq.
Quiet Rockland</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first page of Google results about Southwest Airlines flack Paula Berg tells us this:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.blogsouthwest.com/2007/06/15/behind-the-scenes-blog-queen/" rel="nofollow">http://www.blogsouthwest.com/2007/06/15/behind-the-scenes-blog-queen/</a></p>
<p>Now, never mind &#8220;wacky&#8221;, and &#8220;off-the-wall&#8221; &#8211; &#8220;behind-the-scenes Blog Queen&#8221; and &#8220;Nuts about Southwest&#8221; say it all for me.</p>
<p>So, to Paula Berg of Southwest Airlines, the airline company’s &#8220;behind-the-scenes Blog Queen&#8221;, who says, regarding the events of March 6-7, 2008, and the now-record US$10,200,000 in fines racked up by Southwest: </p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;this situation was never and is not now a safety of flight issue&#8221;.<br />
Nonsense, Paula. Cracks in airplanes? Nonsense, Paula. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been around publicists and other entertainment folk for over 20 years, and I have heard better publicity emanating from self-plugging screenwriters on acid.</p>
<p>And, Paula, as for: </p>
<p>&#8220;[t]he FAA approved our actions and considered the matter closed as of April 2007&#8243;.</p>
<p>Nonsense, Paula.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not &#8220;closed&#8221;, until WE the PUBLIC say it is closed! Take that back to your superiors for me &#8211; and tell them that we are just getting started.</p>
<p>Oh – and, congratulations on staying behind the scenes.</p>
<p>John J. Tormey III, Esq.<br />
Quiet Rockland</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-9660</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-9660</guid>
		<description>Are only ugly women allowed to fly on Southwest ? Well if I can&#039;t have eye candy on my next flight (because I am certainly not a Calvin Klein underwear model and certainly can&#039;t score) then I won&#039;t be flying them! :)

By the way, why did MSNBC report it as them being &quot;kicked off the flight&quot; when they were flying from Tampa to Los Angeles and Los Angeles was their destination ? I mean, did Southwest kick them off while they were 50,000 feet over Kansas or something ? Come on MSNBC, get with it!

Oh, and as for the MySpace page - what a slut.  Too pretty for Southwest, indeed!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are only ugly women allowed to fly on Southwest ? Well if I can&#8217;t have eye candy on my next flight (because I am certainly not a Calvin Klein underwear model and certainly can&#8217;t score) then I won&#8217;t be flying them! :)</p>
<p>By the way, why did MSNBC report it as them being &#8220;kicked off the flight&#8221; when they were flying from Tampa to Los Angeles and Los Angeles was their destination ? I mean, did Southwest kick them off while they were 50,000 feet over Kansas or something ? Come on MSNBC, get with it!</p>
<p>Oh, and as for the MySpace page &#8211; what a slut.  Too pretty for Southwest, indeed!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Enigma</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-9484</link>
		<dc:creator>Enigma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:05:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-9484</guid>
		<description>This is blatant discrimination! I&#039;m calling Al Sharpton! No, wait! He&#039;s not pretty, he&#039;s just black. Wrong minority. Sorry!

Jenny, I hope your looks last a long time. You claim to be well-spoken, but your grammar, spelling and writing skills are not likely to get you very far. (alot? esp? gorgoes? soo discrimated? financial strategic?) Please don&#039;t let the modeling paychecks stop you from finishing high school. Your modesty and humility amaze me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is blatant discrimination! I&#8217;m calling Al Sharpton! No, wait! He&#8217;s not pretty, he&#8217;s just black. Wrong minority. Sorry!</p>
<p>Jenny, I hope your looks last a long time. You claim to be well-spoken, but your grammar, spelling and writing skills are not likely to get you very far. (alot? esp? gorgoes? soo discrimated? financial strategic?) Please don&#8217;t let the modeling paychecks stop you from finishing high school. Your modesty and humility amaze me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leah</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-9482</link>
		<dc:creator>Leah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:32:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-9482</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m glad Jenny doesn&#039;t apparently have any self esteem issues unlike these girls.  I am sure they will all be supporting themselves confidently for many years to come. 

It&#039;s a shame when people can&#039;t see past themselves.

Good luck to all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m glad Jenny doesn&#8217;t apparently have any self esteem issues unlike these girls.  I am sure they will all be supporting themselves confidently for many years to come. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s a shame when people can&#8217;t see past themselves.</p>
<p>Good luck to all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K C</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-9481</link>
		<dc:creator>K C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:04:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-9481</guid>
		<description>Okay - everyone agrees... this story is a joke.  First and foremost, where did they hear that they were pretty.  Perhaps they misunderstood when everyone else said they are &quot;pretty UGLY&quot; and very warped.  Go Southwest - I will fly you more often for pointing out the obvious.  They are pretty pathetic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay &#8211; everyone agrees&#8230; this story is a joke.  First and foremost, where did they hear that they were pretty.  Perhaps they misunderstood when everyone else said they are &#8220;pretty UGLY&#8221; and very warped.  Go Southwest &#8211; I will fly you more often for pointing out the obvious.  They are pretty pathetic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-9478</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-9478</guid>
		<description>Even assuming that these are two ill-mannered, spoiled brats well deserved to be booted off the next leg of their Soutwest flights, still:
&quot;When the plane landed in Los Angeles, the women were escorted off by four uniformed police officers and later questioned by the FBI.&quot;
Does no one else find this a bit over the top for having an exchange with another customer over taking too long in the bathroom? Four police officers!? Four!? Is this really a police matter? An appropriate subject for a Federal criminal investigation? (&quot;distract the crew while another group hijacks the plane&quot; -- like otherwise the flight crew would use kung fu? get real.) It&#039;s a wonder they didn&#039;t mobilize the national Guard.
Sheesh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even assuming that these are two ill-mannered, spoiled brats well deserved to be booted off the next leg of their Soutwest flights, still:<br />
&#8220;When the plane landed in Los Angeles, the women were escorted off by four uniformed police officers and later questioned by the FBI.&#8221;<br />
Does no one else find this a bit over the top for having an exchange with another customer over taking too long in the bathroom? Four police officers!? Four!? Is this really a police matter? An appropriate subject for a Federal criminal investigation? (&#8220;distract the crew while another group hijacks the plane&#8221; &#8212; like otherwise the flight crew would use kung fu? get real.) It&#8217;s a wonder they didn&#8217;t mobilize the national Guard.<br />
Sheesh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RJ</title>
		<link>http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/comment-page-1/#comment-9477</link>
		<dc:creator>RJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-were-just-discriminating-against-because-we-were-young-decent-looking-girls/#comment-9477</guid>
		<description>These girls are not drop dead beauties by any stretch of the imagination.  I fly SWA and you don&#039;t get a bottle of water, you get a beverage in a glass.  When the flight attendants &quot;miss&quot; someone, they know it immediately.  What a load of crap. 

As far as the derogitory remark by the gentlemen, he too should be banned from flying SWA.  Neither is above the law and flight attendants take enough crap from passengers already.  You fly SWA because the fares are cheap.  If you want service, pay for it by flying a major carrier in 1st Class.  Otherwise, stay out of the skies.  And by the way, the rest of us are trying to get to our desitination in one piece with a little bit of quiet.  I&#039;m glad I wasn&#039;t on board as I might have said too much to both &quot;girls&quot; and regretted it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These girls are not drop dead beauties by any stretch of the imagination.  I fly SWA and you don&#8217;t get a bottle of water, you get a beverage in a glass.  When the flight attendants &#8220;miss&#8221; someone, they know it immediately.  What a load of crap. </p>
<p>As far as the derogitory remark by the gentlemen, he too should be banned from flying SWA.  Neither is above the law and flight attendants take enough crap from passengers already.  You fly SWA because the fares are cheap.  If you want service, pay for it by flying a major carrier in 1st Class.  Otherwise, stay out of the skies.  And by the way, the rest of us are trying to get to our desitination in one piece with a little bit of quiet.  I&#8217;m glad I wasn&#8217;t on board as I might have said too much to both &#8220;girls&#8221; and regretted it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

