And she picked her's.

Post #16,794 by Brandioch 11/6/01 12:20:16 AM Reply	And she picked her's. She believed that she was being targetted because of her political affiliations. She acted accourding to her beliefs. This is the fight she chose. We'll see how it turns out. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
Post #16,796 by bepatient 11/6/01 12:26:57 AM Reply	Cause she's an idiot... No wonder you're championing her cause. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,798 by Brandioch 11/6/01 12:32:38 AM Reply	You don't know what "detain" means.... You're fantasizing about actions that will get you banned by security at an airport BUT which will not get you investigated by the cops and/or FBI. But you won't tell anyone what those specific activities are. Nor will you follow a simple procedure showing that you're wrong. (Because you know you're wrong and the FBI would be all over your ass.) You can't even read the articles you're referencing. And you're calling her and me idiots? What.................ever
Post #16,802 by bepatient 11/6/01 12:48:34 AM Reply	Sure I do... in its popular use it means to hold for an extended period of time...while I suppose if you want to be a semantic son of a bitch (which appears to be the case) then I will grant you that security can "detain" someone while relevent authorities arrive. I don't have to fantasize something that will get you rejected from the sterile zone at an airport while not incurring FBI investigation...because we're debating one such issue right now...or haven't you figured that out yet. I also happen to know you've picked a really bad horse on which to hitch your wagon, cowboy. I read the article. SHE SAID she submitted to searches. I referenced the airport website where they said she did not. I can read. Can you? But of course a pissed of person who was rebuffed after making herself look like an idiot is guaranteed to be telling the absolute truth. What...ever, back-atcha You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,805 by Brandioch 11/6/01 1:02:56 AM Reply	Reading with comprehension. Once again, I have post definitions before you will understand what a word means. I've quoted from the website you referenced. Why don't you try the same? Quote the passage where it says she refused to be scanned. If we have to break this down to baby-steps, I can. #1. "detain" Now, we'll work on #2. We'll save #3 for when you're ready for an FBI interrogation.
Post #16,808 by bepatient 11/6/01 1:17:46 AM Reply	Please refer to the quote... ...contained in my post titled...very appropriately... do you practice being an idiot. I gave you your pedantic "detain" definition...though popular use of the word would have the actual momentary holding of a person mean something quite different from being sequestered in a room full of law enforcement. None of this helps your case any...because you don't have one. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,842 by andread 11/6/01 11:23:09 AM Reply	Right to travel? Big as I am on rights I don't know where this one comes from As she is not in prison, she could take a car, bus, train, walk, crawl, etc. She is really talking about her right to use an airport under her own terms and I don't think there is such a right A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|http://wxxe.org]
Post #16,856 by bepatient 11/6/01 1:03:59 PM Reply	Thanks... ...tell that to the other ones who have that right up there in this woman's civil rights. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,866 by Brandioch 11/6/01 1:53:53 PM Reply	Um, you're posting in reply to Bill's comment. My point was that she was not allowed to contract with another airline. Not that she wasn't allowed to travel.
Post #16,874 by Silverlock 11/6/01 2:21:42 PM Reply	Nit "My point was that she was not allowed to contract with another airline." She could make as many contracts with airlines as she wants. The airport security couldn't stop her if they wanted to. But they could and did stop her from entering the secure area of the airport in response to her being a PITA. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,890 by Brandioch 11/6/01 2:58:48 PM Reply	SLAM! "She could make as many contracts with airlines as she wants. The airport security couldn't stop her if they wanted to. But they could and did stop her from entering the secure area of the airport in response to her being a PITA." FUCKING YES!!!!!!!!!! NOT because she didn't follow the rules. NOT because she broke a law. BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T KOWTOW TO THE SELF-IMPORTANT, PATHETIC ASSHOLES IN THE POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY !!!!!!!! Which was my point! Which you have just admitted.
Post #16,894 by Silverlock 11/6/01 3:09:13 PM Reply	That's funny. I thought the point you had been trying to defend was that she had her "rights" abrogated. Sorry, my mistake. Wait a minute, I just reviewed some of your posts and that was the point you were trying to defend. I guess I didn't make a mistake after all. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,897 by Brandioch 11/6/01 3:15:36 PM Reply	I'm glad you agree. She had her rights infringed upon because she didn't kowtow. Is that concept too complex? Not because she did anything illegal. Not because she didn't follow the rules.
Post #16,902 by Silverlock 11/6/01 3:19:00 PM Reply	Those who will not see I give up. You win. Much too much effort has been expended trying to penetrate the thickness of your skull. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,914 by Brandioch 11/6/01 3:34:10 PM Reply	In case of factual depletion, abandon discussion. You've already agreed that she was treated the way she was because she was a "PITA". Now that you've admitted the authorities did not have any LEGAL grounds, you're bailing out of the discussion. Kowtow to your masters. And NEVER question authority.
Post #16,920 by Another Scott 11/6/01 3:47:26 PM Reply	Talking past each other. Hi Brandioch and All, B, you seem to be missing some of the others' points, and vice versa. Can a person be effectively searched if they don't stand still? I don't think so. We have a report that she wouldn't stand still, thus if true, she was excluded for a valid reason, not because she didn't kowtow. I think this is closer to the truth than her account. Now that you've admitted the authorities did not have any LEGAL grounds, you're bailing out of the discussion. As you know, Don didn't do that. The airport and airline had the legal authority to do what they did. The rules are listed in this FAA [link\|http://cas.faa.gov/faq.html\|FAQ]: Q. What regulations cover civil aviation security and where can I find a copy of them? A. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 107 and 108, regulates airports and air carriers, respectively, and may be found on the FAA's web site at [link\|http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/FARS\|http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/FARS]. Q. Who is responsible for the people working at our nations airports performing security screening? When and why do they physically search my carry-on? A. Preboard screeners are either direct airline employees or, in most cases, contracted by the airline to perform security screening functions. The FAA requires airlines to screen all items entering the sterile area of the airport. Preboard screeners may screen carry-on items by x-raying and/or manual search. If screeners observe an item inside a bag that they cannot readily identify during x-ray inspection, they must open the bag and manually inspect the contents. Q. Under what authority does the FAA or the airlines conduct security screening or physical searches at airports? A. Air carriers are required to conduct passenger screening under Title 49 United States Code Section 44901, Screening passengers and property, which states that "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations requiring screening of all passengers and property that will be carried in a cabin of an aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air transportation. The screening must take place before boarding and be carried out by a weapon-detecting facility or procedure used or operated by an employee or agent of an air carrier, intrastate air carier, or foreign air carrier." [...] Q. I would like to be issued a special identification card, based upon a handicap or religious belief, which would help expedite security screening at the airport. A. The FAA does not grant or issue a special identification card, nor can the airlines grant a special exception for security screening . The FAA does allow the airlines, upon request, to conduct private screening of individuals. Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,928 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:02:01 PM Reply	Nope. Looking at the whole situation. There are two, somewhat conflicting accounts. If she refused to be screened, what would have happened? What would happen to you if you attempted to enter the secured area without being screened? Did this happen to her? She said she submitted to a complete search of her person and her baggage (quote available upon request). They say she was moving and resisted being wanded. So, who's right? That is why I told Bill to try it at his local airport. But he's afraid to because he knows that he'd be detained and questioned by the local cops and/or FBI. Since this didn't happen to her..................... Cause and effect? Action and reaction? Their position is that she wasn't let on the plane because she refused to be screened. My counter to that is that, if she had refused to be screened, she'd be talking to the local cops and/or FBI. Since she wasn't, she didn't.
Post #16,940 by Another Scott 11/6/01 4:16:25 PM Reply	You've apparently missed some things. There's a difference between 1) Walking through a metal detector, putting a bag on the X-ray machine, (after being asked) walking up to a guard with a wand for hand screening and at that point refusing to be scanned in an effective manner; and 2) walking through the metal detector and (after being asked) refusing to be scanned with a wand and then continuting to walk toward your gate. In the first instance, you'll be refused entry, as Ms. Oden was. In the second instance, you'll likely be detained and the local law enforcement personnel will likely pay you a visit. Bill (IIRC) pointed out, regulations say you have a right to refuse personal screening so you won't be arrested for #1. You'll be denied entry, as she was. Your challenge seems to be closer to #2 than #1. If she refused to be screened, what would have happened? What would happen to you if you attempted to enter the secured area without being screened? Did this happen to her? Did she attempt to enter the secure area without being screened? I've seen no evidence of that. It seems to me, her actions were closer to #1. She apparently interferred with effective screening of her person, so she was denied entry. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,944 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:23:14 PM Reply	Prove it. This is easily solvable. Just do what I said to do. No need to discuss it. Just do it.
Post #16,950 by Another Scott 11/6/01 4:26:52 PM Reply	Spell it out. Don't be coy. What is your specific challenge. Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,955 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:33:16 PM Reply	I do not believe this. Yet the evidence is here, before my own eyes. "Don't be coy. What is your specific challenge." Is it possible that you have managed to miss EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of that example of mine? Your fear........ - (Brandioch) - 2001-11-06 19:56:18 Or, better yet, do a search on the string "cops and/or FBI". Get back to me when you've completed the challenge. Fuck it. Just to save people the time and trouble of asking what it was again, I'll post it again. #1. Go to your local airport. #2. Try to go through security. #3. Refuse to be screened. That's all. Just do that. Just like it is claimed she did.
Post #16,964 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:42:01 PM Reply	You should... ...because I've given you 2 examples. One...a statement from airport security. The other, your very own Nancy Oden...who didn't seem to get detained...according to your dictionary term. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,970 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:45:10 PM Reply	Reading WITH comprehension. No, Bill. "I do not believe this" was in reference to the fact that someone seems have managed to get this far into the thread without reading what my challnge to you was. The one you are afraid to take. Even though you keep claiming that nothing would happen. Your fear tells the truth.
Post #16,979 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:59:21 PM Reply	Sure.... so you can continue to ignore direct contradictory evidence in an effort to make me drive to the airport and attempt to crash security. Since I can read with comprehension and your challenge was to go THROUGH security without being screened...not deny additional screening. Not likely...since I have offered evidence...which you reject. SO I would say that the evidence is there for >you< to refute...not I. How far are you from Sea/Tac? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,978 by Another Scott 11/6/01 4:57:12 PM Reply	The reason I asked... was because her case didn't involve her trying to get through security without screening. It involved her refusing to be effectively screened. If you disagree, please post evidence that she attempted to go through security without being screened. Until you can do so, your challenge doesn't fit the situation here. That's why I gave you the opportunity to clarify what your challenge was. Don's post of the interview with her said that she was at the gate when she was told she couldn't get on the plane. Was she arrested? No. Was she allowed to fly? No, she wasn't. Because it was decided that she wasn't effectively screened (or because she was against the war, or her politics, or her bad attitude, or ..., depending on your point of view). This doesn't seem to fit your view of what should have happened to her, or what would happen to me or BP if we did what she's accused of doing. I think this ends my participation in this thread.... Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,932 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:10:51 PM Reply	Ahh...your MO... ...as proved below in your personal attack on me. No facts to back your assertions...so instead you create strawman (I dare you to crash security), invent new laws (the big bad FBI will "detain" you if you refuse screening) and attack me. Even though I've quoted a statement of fact that anyone can refuse additional screening under penalty of >denied access<...(not big bad FBI man)...AND...the airport personnel..when faced with a passenger who denied/made difficult/balked at additional screening was...in fact...not arrested or "detained" by the big bad FBI man but instead she was...oh...there it is again...simply denied access. Here is where you say to both Silverlock and myself..."Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!" Mr Black Knight, sir. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,947 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:25:13 PM Reply	Compare the dates. do you practice being an idiot? - (bepatient) - 2001-11-06 05:18:11 In GMT to make it easier. How many hours earlier is your attack on me?
Post #16,952 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:30:26 PM Reply	What...to your posts yesterday? Ah...feigned innocence... "I didn't start it...YOU did" It doesn't help your case. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,973 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:48:43 PM Reply	Quote it. If you can. Claim whatever you want. Just reference it.
Post #16,980 by bepatient 11/6/01 5:00:23 PM Reply	Even if I quote it you'll ignore it. You've got quite a track record of doing that in this thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,924 by Ashton 11/6/01 3:59:20 PM Reply	Et tu Brute? Migawd - is it dumbth or is it Memorex? TWO conflicting 'versions' - of a necessarily complex sequence of human interactions - have been 'reported'. Nowhere yet! - is there anything Like, "independent witnesses, whose stories ~agree and are consistent with the few 'factoids' we THINK we noticed"? amidst the eviently contradictory hearsay. The authority-story (if we ever hear much more of it) May be more nearly correct. The person-story (if we ever hear.. yada yada) This has ALL been an exercise in: which SIDE does one automatically credit the MOST, given insufficient data (even to find this &^#$^# airport). Who flunked* this test? THAT's the ONLY question we can answer with Authority via this exercise. The rest.. is just Personal Rorschak tests. A. Old English Prayer: Dear Lord, please protect me from the wrath of those who Know (also from: your Followers).
Post #17,058 by boxley 11/6/01 9:53:33 PM Reply	did tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #16,895 by bepatient 11/6/01 3:11:21 PM Reply	Wrong. Because she refused additional security...because of some delusion of grandeur because she fancies herself an activist and that someone in authority actually knew who she was. She was refused access beyond the checkpoint because she refused additional scrutiny. And...she wasn't arrested because its NOT against the law to refuse that screening. HOWEVER, if you refuse that screening you are not allowed on the plane. Simple really...for someone attached to the real world. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,907 by Brandioch 11/6/01 3:26:00 PM Reply	Ahhhh, it's another "detain" issue. Bill thinks that "resisted" == "refused". Just like he got all upset when I posted a dictionary definition of "detain" (but that's not what common usage is). Because she did not cooperate with the authorities, Bill's mind can't handle it. I can understand that. Resist Refuse They both start with "R". "in its popular use it means to hold for an extended period of time...while I suppose if you want to be a semantic son of a bitch (which appears to be the case) then I will grant you that security can "detain" someone while relevent authorities arrive." "...popular use..." Depends upon what group you consider "popular", I guess. If you pick the Right group, resist can mean refuse. At least as far as the Authorities are concerned.
Post #16,922 by bepatient 11/6/01 3:55:51 PM Reply	I see... ...lose the argument...attack the man. How pleasant. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,939 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:16:21 PM Reply	Ha! (" do you practice being an idiot?") "...lose the argument...attack the man." Check the date on that post of your's. Need I remind you of who had to post a dictionary definition for whom? Oh, I'm sorry. Did you men "...lose the argument...attack the man" was going to be YOUR M.O.?
Post #16,919 by Ashton 11/6/01 3:45:09 PM Reply	How clairvoyant of you, BeeP Now you have added orthogonally, but so very logically: A. She is an 'activist' (what mean? - all others are sheep, then?) thus, B. Surely! she is as self-important as er an Economist fondling his fav model of reality.. on to orgasm (?) A + B = C. (commutative law too? C = B + A, etc.) C. Ergo - now you are professing even to know her inner motives! have created a plan for her: confront and destroy Authority wherever found!, perhaps? And Gosh! how CERTAIN have you become: that you now Know everything which happened in that airport.. and from absence of Anything but: They said / She said. Talk aboutcher Data Mining !! - Why.. You must be one of the Best 'They' have. [quite old song begins] An old refrain is haunting me.. do dah da dahh da da.. {sigh} But then I must be so stoopid to have missed the real gems buried in all those contra-dictions as in "say" "oppositely". A.
Post #17,057 by boxley 11/6/01 9:52:21 PM Reply	didnt tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #16,877 by bepatient 11/6/01 2:24:02 PM Reply	She could have... ...bought a ticket at any other airport for any other airline. She was denied access to the sterile area of Bangor airport...it AIN'T THAT BIG. All flights leave from the same secured area. How is she going to board a flight from a secured area that she cannot access? C'mon king of binary logic...you can figure this one out, can't ya? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,900 by Ashton 11/6/01 3:17:51 PM Reply	See above: thus far it is ALL 'formalized' hearsay of CONTRADICTORY VERSIONS of what happened. And you, slave that you are to applying binary logic to every manifestation of real life, indiscriminately* are Laughably consistent in your choosing of a 0 over a 1: * hint: real life is never logical, let alone Boolean. Only machines are 'logical'. logical. logical. EOF. SHE must be GUILTY because the other side is AUTHORITY: your unerring choice in every case where the information is inadequate to fairly assessing [in FACT..] WHO LIED. (Have you a statue of Geo. Boole in your secret closet, along with your first engraving of Adam Smith? With candle drippings, perhaps?) A.
Post #16,903 by bepatient 11/6/01 3:20:41 PM Reply	There are 2 accounts... ...the airports and the newspapers. Airport says she refused...news guy said she insisted on not being touched...either way...she balked at a security measure at the airport. They then have an obligation to the remaining passengers in the facility to deny her access. No grandiose >authority< play here. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,912 by Brandioch 11/6/01 3:31:21 PM Reply	Bill, you are telling a lie. "Airport says she refused..." No. Not in EITHER story was it EVER said that she REFUSED. Like I said, you didn't know what "detain" meant. You don't know what "refused" means.
Post #16,935 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:13:08 PM Reply	Keep nit-picking... ...it proves your case so sound when you do. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,943 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:21:31 PM Reply	"detained" "popular use" Again, go to your local airport and try to pass security without being screened. "nit-picking"? Well, maybe in your mind. But we've already established the condition of your mind. "detained"
Post #16,937 by tonytib 11/6/01 4:15:04 PM Reply	You need to do a little reading: Airport says: "Ms. Oden was refused boarding after she failed to cooperate with required passenger screening protocols." OK, maybe you think "failed to cooperate" doesn't mean a refusal to cooperate -- or maybe you're on another planet. Tony
Post #16,941 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:19:38 PM Reply	Read my other posts. This is getting so old. "Oden said that while she asked security staff not to touch her with the wand, she did allow them to complete their search of both her person and her baggage. " There, quoted and referenced. SHE DID NOT REFUSE TO BE SCREENED. Maybe you should do a little reading. I've only posted this about a dozen times.
Post #16,948 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:25:31 PM Reply	She did not... ...submit herself to be screened in the manner they require. I believe I posted a rediculous statement about hanging her upside down afterwards to make a point that you still are missing. IT DOESN'T MATTER what she let them do...what matters it what she did NOT let them do...and that denial of a required screening protocol denied her access to the secure area of the airport. You turn to come up with some more rediculous justifications for your very weak case. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,972 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:47:47 PM Reply	Which was my point. "...what matters it what she did NOT let them do..." Kowtow to the authorities. Again, my challenge still stands. And your refusal to take it tells the truth.
Post #16,981 by bepatient 11/6/01 5:01:11 PM Reply	No it wasn't. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!