Jmac,
You either continue to simply and genuinely not "get it" or stubbornly and vainly refuse to admit to anyone else that what you wrote was so wrong.
I confess I really don't know the socio-cultural mores of Canada. Maybe people up there use "Mangia Cake" or "Canuck" the way many of us around here use "Gringo", i.e. with no apparent negative intent. Frankly, I just threw that in there to try and make what I was trying to say more personal to you. Apparently, I probably could have picked a better example. However, I can guarantee you that if you, as a white boy, used the term "Nigger" towards a black person here in the US, most of them would be seriously offended and some of them might even physically attack you for it. Similarly, I can tell you and am telling you as a Jew that, while I would not consider it something to get in a fight over, I would find it very offensive if someone called me a "Kike" (and think to myself how it reflected on the racism, ignorance and insensitivity of the person saying it). EVEN IF you THINK there is nothing wrong with the words you choose to use or EVEN IF you realize it is bad BUT don't THINK the other person should be so seriously offended, how they take it is NOT YOUR CALL. Once you know that other people ARE offended by what you say, the proper thing that most civilized people would do is to say "I'm sorry I offended you. I didn't mean to but I will try not to do it again" and then, AT LEAST, not use those offensive terms anywhere around anyone who might take it offensively (Actually you really should stop using those terms anywhere once you find out they're bad). But apparently "Canucks" aren't particularly civilized.
And, as I've already pointed out, what you wrote goes well beyond the simple name-calling that I used for examples. Essentially, you were either at best unfairly insulting all Jews by linking them to the reprehensible actions of a corporation that is not even run by any Jews or, worse, you were badmouthing a corporation (which deserved it) but doing it by likening their actions to the sorts of reprehensible actions that people (like you apparently) already unfairly associate with Jews (who don't deserve it). There is no way you could claim it was just some meaningless word or title since it was used in direct context to specific actions that we've all just been complaining about. In effect, whenever you say a person (or company) who is cheap, greedy and deceitful is "jewing someone over", you're saying that Jews most typically exhibit those traits. How can you honestly say that is anything but insulting to a Jewish person? It would be like me saying that young men from Canada (which includes you) are ignorant, insensitive, racist assholes.
This is the last I'll write on it because if you can't "get it" by now, you'll probably never be able to comprehend these simple concepts. And I expect that is the case, that you're simply to dense to understand what I've been trying to explain or to proud to admit that what you wrote was wrong. I might have understood if you wrote what you did and then, after I called you on it, said "Gee, I hadn't stopped to think what that meant or how it would sound when I wrote it (which happens to all of us sometimes) but now that you've pointed it out and explained why it was so offensive to you, I understand and will try not to use that expression again". But now, even after my painstakingly explaining it to you from all different angles, you continue to cling to the notion that there was nothing at all wrong with what you wrote. In the end, LIK probably had the best idea when he advised me: "Sadly, while it is difficult, we are probably better off just ignoring or writing off such ignorance and bias."
------------
LIK,
I'm not sure if that link is really any new update or softening of their tone or not. It appears to be the exact same message that Jmac posted about on Tuesday.
The key part to me seems to be #3:
Quote:
You can bring a FREE personal item onboard, such as a purse, briefcase, backpack or laptop computer. Other exceptions are: assistive devices, medicine, umbrella, outer garments (coats, hats, wraps), camera, car seat/stroller, infant diaper bag, reading material for the flight, or food for immediate consumption.
1) Weren't we always able to bring a "FREE" personal item onboard before? In that excerpt, it seems like they're trying to make it sound like they're giving something new now that they hadn't before. Gee, that is mighty white of them, ... er, I mean it is very decent of them.
2) So does all that this new policy simply mean is that they'll now start charging for anything MORE than one? What if you have say a camera that doesn't fit in your small laptop case and you carry it seperate? Will you get charged for that even though both items are really fairly small?
3) Does this clarification above represent a reversal or softening of what they initially were trying to do or were they never really ever planning to charge for the 1st carry-on item? In other words, was their new policy ever meant to completely exclude ANY carry-on OR was it always meant to just LIMIT it to ONE item of REASONABLE size?
4) That list includes many specific examples but is still seems open to some interpretation. For example, I assume by backpack they really mean a DAYpack or something like the bookbags K*ds use iin school but to me a backpack could be much larger and, in fact, that is what I use to carry ALL my stuff when I travel recreationally. So I would read that part to mean that I should be able to bring my bag on the plane at no extra charge but I wouldn't bet they would agree. So how do they decide what constitutes a "personal item", particularly when they're not specifically on the list? The check-in clerk or gate attendant? And will they be consistent, rigid or lax?
The list of allowables seems to fall into three catregories:
1) items that you might need getting to/from the airport and/or gate and which thus could not be so easily pack with your other stuff (e.g. umbrella, outer garments such as coats, hats, wraps), car seat/stroller)
2) items that you might need on the flight itself (e.g. assistive devices, medicine, infant diaper bag, reading material for the flight, or food for immediate consumption) - (btw, does this mean that the duty-free liquor or cigarettes one might buy before getting on the plane would not count because they are not for immediate consumption?)
3) items of particularly high-value and/or a delicate nature or satchels meant to hold such items (e.g. purse, briefcase, laptop computer or camera)
plus the (presumably small) "backpack" that is used to hold one or more of the above items.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
So I went to the urban dictionary and found this.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! 
