Help Get Meg Home to NH!

MegIn case you missed it, Meg posted earlier today here on the blog, but likely because she is modest, didn’t make a big deal out of the fact that there is a fundraiser going on to help her get home to the Shire from Florida. See, US Airways screwed her over and reneged on their offer to get her home, and she doesn’t have enough cash to get back. Can you help? We’re already halfway to the goal, and any money that is raised over and above the cost of travel will be donated to WeWontFly.com!

UPDATE: Apparently Meg had the money fronted by WeWontFly‘s George Donnelly – thanks George. Every dollar raised will go to pay him back and beyond that will benefit WeWontFly.com

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


68 Comments

  1. ". See, US Airways screwed her over and reneged on their offer to get her home"

    Only because she reneged her agreement to comply with security procedures, which is part of the bargain if you want them to get you home.

  2. Actually, she does have enough. George Donnelly gave it to her. This is to reimburse him. Please be truthful.

  3. We're raising money for this woman because she was too dumb to keep it moving through security at a U.S. airport?

  4. @RAB

    "We're" not doing anything. Somebody created a ChipIn for people that wish to donate to Meg's return to NH. If it's something that you're interested in then contribute and if it's not then I hardly think trolling this blog is a productive use of your time. But there is no we, only individuals acting on their own accord.

    At least nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to contribute.

  5. "At least nobody’s holding a gun to your head forcing you to contribute."

    But apparently, if Jill's statement is true, Ian is still lying about what the money is needed for/where it is really going.

  6. "At least nobody’s holding a gun to your head forcing you to contribute."

    And I guess it's in this sense that this pledge drive is very much unlike the airport security.

  7. It is definitely true, from Meg's own word in her original post:

    "If you support my actions, and would like to help me return home, I ask that you please contribute to this chip in that is going directly to George Donnelly, who was gracious enough to front me the money for a return ticket home."

    So when Ian states "…she doesn’t have enough cash to get back. Can you help? We’re already halfway to the goal…"

    That is 100% not true.

  8. Yup, looks like Ian just as likely to be deceitful as those 'big bad government goons'

  9. And that is the problem.

    I hate liars and I really do want to support these activists, but it is hard when it is so obvious they are exaggerating, withholding the truth, and outright lying to your face.

  10. I suggest involving yourself more with FSP, they are much more honest/less sensational.

  11. Thanks for jumping to conclusions. Now, here's the truth. I created a chipin for Meg yesterday when she didn't have the money to fly out of FL. I woke up today and saw there was this other chipin that was being used instead and put it up in a blog post. I had no idea George D. was going to buy her a ticket. I had heard Adam was going to cover the cost, but none of that changes the fact that Meg didn't have the money for a ticket when I made the chipin.

  12. How is it "jumping to conclusions" when you linked to Meg's blog post that directly contradicts your statements in this one?

  13. Hey, don't start thinking this is a money making scheme or anything. I mean, look where all those advertising dollars for the FK Advertising chipin go:Ridley Report, Liberty Conspiracy, Free Minds. Who runs those things anyways?
    And I don't know about all airlines, but if my ticket were lost, stolen, mangled etc, I am pretty sure I could get a replacement for maybe a $25 fee. Fly Southwest next time. Go ticketless.

  14. I agree with Jill, Ian., it's not jumping to conclusions at all.

  15. Yeah, I can understand Jill's reaction, and am glad the misunderstanding has been clarified.

  16. And yet it hasn't been clarified in the title. I'm guessing because "help Meg pay back someone who leant her money" isn't as catchy.

  17. Paul on Fri, 12th Nov 2010 2:24 pm

    Yeah, I can understand Jill’s reaction, and am glad the misunderstanding has been clarified.

    Translation:

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

  18. The jumped conclusion was that I'd lied. I didn't lie, as I didn't know. I didn't read her blog post before posting. I'd literally just woken up.

    I see no reason to change the title. By covering the cost of her ticket you are helping her get home. George D. merely fronted the cost to make it happen sooner rather than later.

    Thanks for the thoughts!

  19. So you would rather perpetuate a lie than clarify and you don't read posts on your website that you link to in other posts?

    Okay Ian, good to know.

  20. Sorry, what was the lie? I think I've clarified your misunderstanding of this situation.

  21. As far as reading the post goes, I intend to, but was busy recording Meg's appearances on multiple radio shows and handling other matters. Now I am stopping down to address being called a liar, because that is nonsense.

  22. That she couldn't get home without all of this effort from others on her behalf maybe signifies that she is too lazy, should work harder, and generally be more fruitful. Go Galt or go home (if you can make it through the airport scanners).

  23. Jill, it's all about the show, not what actually is. Read a post before posting a reply? Why that would take 3-4 minutes, and I'm sure someone who gets up at the crack of noon can't be bothered with such trivialities.

    Pay no attention people, IAN THAT IAN has spoken.

  24. See comment #7.

  25. Perhaps edit with a correction about where the money is going and an apology for the miscommunication?

  26. Jill, see the definition of lie. I had no intent to deceive, as I didn't know she had money fronted to her. I'd been up all night working on a video and was unaware the situation had changed.

  27. Hey Ian,
    " In case you missed it, Meg posted earlier today here on the blog"

    That was the opening line from YOUR blog post. So, I guess you missed it?

  28. Moniker,

    Great suggestion, thanks.

    David,

    Clearly, I missed the full content of her post, yep.

  29. "Jill, see the definition of lie. I had no intent to deceive, as I didn’t know she had money fronted to her. I’d been up all night working on a video and was unaware the situation had changed."

    Well you haven't changed the deceitful title of this post, or the misinformation it contains, so until you change it you are consciously deceiving people.

  30. "As far as reading the post goes, I intend to, but was busy recording Meg’s appearances on multiple radio shows and handling other matters. Now I am stopping down to address being called a liar, because that is nonsense."

    Haven't you accused me multiple times on the forum of writing things before taking time to think and research them? Maybe you should take some of your own advice…

  31. So Ian we are to believe "you were unaware the situation had changed" but the first thing you link to in this post is her blog where she spells out her intentions and then you go on to misrepresent those intentions?

  32. That's just your opinion that the title is deceitful. The donated money is still helping Meg get back, just in a less-direct manner. George fronted the money in lieu of waiting for the chip-in.

  33. It's all of 5 paragraphs, Ian. The links to the chipin are in blue. I would think someone of your high tech background would have caught that.

  34. "That’s just your opinion that the title is deceitful. The donated money is still helping Meg get back, just in a less-direct manner. George fronted the money in lieu of waiting for the chip-in."

    Absolutely not, Ian. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The money may be helping *Meg* but it's not helping her get home. She's getting home anyways because someone already donated money to her. The money you are collecting will help her pay that person back, not get her home.

    And if you're going to deny that, how can you deny that statements like "she doesn’t have enough cash to get back" (which is in your post) are not deceitful?

  35. Sorry Holy,

    I woke up and my primary goal was to help get Meg home, so I banged out a post to help make that happen sooner by featuring the chip-in. I felt it was more important to move quickly than to research what was going on to see if it had changed from my last assessment. Sometimes mistakes get made when one is in a hurry.

    The post has been updated to reflect reality.

  36. For someone that is so concerned with the definitions of words and their meaning on his radio show I am very disappointed with this post.

  37. Excellent on the fly excuses, Ian. I guess you were so concerned to get Meg home safely that you got up at what time? Noon? What are you, still a college student?

  38. It is okay to just admit it Ian that your primary goal has been to book Meg on radio and tv shows and not get her home.

  39. Yep David, I was up all last night working on Meg-related things. Now then, on to other matters. Good day!

  40. Ian, how has the post been changed exactly? The title is still misleading, and it still says "she doesn’t have enough cash to get back"

  41. Meg could have been on the next flight if she really wanted to. Not to mention the US Airways portion of the story is odd as well. Your physical ticket means nothing. So what the TSA ripped it up if they truly did, it still exists on a computer with the airline. You can print out multiple boarding passes. And, didnt Meg say the person at US Airways was really nice, helpful, and accommodating?

  42. Yep, then they reneged on their offer later, Jill, but I won't blame you for not hearing about that – there's a lot out there about this.

    Holy, see the UPDATE: part of the post. That's standard for blogs – you keep the original post and add what corrections are necessary, kind of like newspapers do.

    Thanks again for holding my feet to the flames – I promise not to blog while groggy too much in the future!

  43. Ian Freeman on Fri, 12th Nov 2010 2:55 pm

    "Now then, on to other matters. Good day!"

    IAN THAT IAN has spoken.

  44. I did hear about that Ian, but Meg never explained it and I don't blame commercial carriers at all for potential passengers that will not go through clearly defined security features. Private TSA would be far more thorough as you always discuss on your show. So I am really not sure how US Airways "screwed her over."

  45. Unlike those done wrong by the government one can actually successfully sue a private company so I am sure private commercial air carriers would go above and beyond the call of duty to make sure all passengers are not a threat unlike the slipshod TSA government bureaucrats and their bumbling shady work.

  46. "I don’t blame commercial carriers at all for potential passengers that will not go through clearly defined security features."

    Exactly. What if someone refused to go through the procedures and then set off a bomb? I'm sure we'd never hear the end of how 'the security features aren't even effective."

  47. – I promise not to blog while groggy too much in the future!

    There's a definite maybe.

  48. "Holy, see the UPDATE: part of the post. That’s standard for blogs – you keep the original post and add what corrections are necessary, kind of like newspapers do."

    Just like those newspapers you accuse of being biased and only reporting the things the want to report, the way they want to report them, in order to persuade people to their side despite the reality of the situation?

  49. I’m sure we’d never hear the end of how ‘the security features aren’t even effective.”

    Because they're not effective. I know this may come as a shocker to you, but the effectiveness of security is not directly proportional to to the degree it humiliates and invades the privacy of those it's intended to protect.

  50. Don't give her any money!

    Give it to Obama for his return home!

Care to comment?