Read....Then post.

Post #16,654 by Brandioch 11/5/01 3:45:01 PM Reply	Read....Then post. Bill said "She refused to allow the wand." The article said: "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." She ASKED them not to TOUCH her with the wand. She SUBMITTED to a COMPLETE search of her PERSON and her BAGGAGE. Bill said: "She's not allowed on ANY plane. Them's the rules." But the article specifically stated that she submitted to a COMPLETE search of her PERSON and BAGGAGE. It's called "reading with comprehension".
Post #16,658 by Silverlock 11/5/01 3:58:09 PM Reply	I comprehend just fine. She was being a PITA. They gave her some grief in response, "you can't fly today". Ever hear of we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? It may have been a tightass response but it clearly did not impinge on her rights. You can call it retaliatory or vindictive, but not a denial of her rights. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,670 by Brandioch 11/5/01 4:29:37 PM Reply	Again, comprehension. The other airlines were told to NOT let her fly. They did not refuse service, they were TOLD to refuse service. After she had passed the search.
Post #16,672 by Silverlock 11/5/01 4:40:36 PM Reply	Right back atcha The Airport security refused her access to the terminal. Nowhere is there any mention of the airlines being "told" to do anything. -quote After the incident, Oden was told she could not take her scheduled flight to Chicago, and that she could not travel on any other airline at the airport that day. \ufffdIf I had done something wrong, they should have arrested me instead of denying me my right to travel,\ufffd an upset Oden said Friday. \ufffdWe\ufffdre losing more of our rights and people don\ufffdt realize it.\ufffd -endquote (emphasis mine) As far as her "right to travel", Go to another airport, cooperate, get on flight, go to Chicago. Sheesh. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,678 by bepatient 11/5/01 4:49:08 PM Reply	Oh >there< it is... If I had done something wrong, they should have arrested me instead of denying me my right to travel, an upset Oden said Friday. She says she has a "right" to travel. Hop in the car, babe... Elwood: It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses. Jake: Hit it! You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,683 by Silverlock 11/5/01 4:52:08 PM Reply	Damn! Where did I leave my sunglasses? Can't leave home without 'em, ya know. :-) Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,687 by Brandioch 11/5/01 4:57:31 PM Reply	That's right. She was told she couldn't fly with any of the other airlines there. I wonder what would have happened if she had tried. Care to guess? And she is right. If she HAD done something wrong, she would have been arrested.
Post #16,689 by Silverlock 11/5/01 5:01:03 PM Reply	I wonder what would happen if I pissed into the wind? But no, I'm not stupid enough to do that. Admit it, you're reaching. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,695 by Brandioch 11/5/01 5:06:08 PM Reply	She wasn't arrested or detained or charged. So, what was the complaint(s) about her again?
Post #16,820 by Silverlock 11/6/01 8:33:28 AM Reply	re: complaints -quote "So, what was the complaint(s) about her again?" -endquote Let's see if I can put this into words of one syllable, She did not cooperate (sorry for the big word) with airport (sorry for the big word) security (sorry for the big word). Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,871 by Brandioch 11/6/01 2:15:08 PM Reply	How can I put this? How did she not cooperate? Details? Did she refuse to be scanned? NO! Did she refuse to be searched? NO! Did she refuse to have her baggage searched? NO! Did she refuse to kowtow to the self-important pathetic asshole running the show? YES! And that got her banned. Congratulations. That is what you are supporting. Pardon me if I don't see the problem. I understand how certain of you would consider that a problem.
Post #16,872 by Ashton 11/6/01 2:17:43 PM Reply	ie Words to Live-By, Cratchit: Never Question Authority\ufffd
Post #16,875 by Another Scott 11/6/01 2:22:14 PM Reply	How can a search be conducted if she won't stand still? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=16584\|Here] is a post with the Bangor news story. \ufffdShe was uncooperative during the screening process,\ufffd said American Eagle spokesman Kurt Iverson, who added that Oden reportedly would not stand still when security staff tried to wave a metal-detecting wand over her. \ufffdObviously if they can\ufffdt submit to screening, [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations require that they not be allowed to board the plane.\ufffd How can they effectively screen a passenger who won't stand still? In effect, she refused to be scanned. More in Bill's thread in the Open Forum. Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,881 by Ashton 11/6/01 2:32:15 PM Reply	Agreed that this may have been the case. LITMUS TEST #1 SHE denies that. THEY claim that. WE DON'T KNOW !! This has ALL been an exercise about: WHICH conclusion does one automatically jump to - given conflicting CLAIMS. Get It ? It has been merely a LITMUS TEST of personal er 'proclivities'. Who flunked ? {Sheesh!} A.
Post #16,883 by Another Scott 11/6/01 2:36:18 PM Reply	Some of us took the essay test. While, maybe, some of us took it as true/false. :-) As we've both said, we don't know what really happened. There are examples of people being singled out unfairly. This, to me, doesn't seem to be an example of such an occurrence. Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,888 by bepatient 11/6/01 2:55:49 PM Reply	And again... ...she felt singled out >by her admission<...refused wanding by reporter and airport account (2 different sources saying she was either difficult or refused part of the screening). She was denied access. That made her mad, obviously. There aren't alot of conclusions to jump to, Ash. What seems to be the problem is that some have granted rights to people that don't exist...invented airport rules that don't exist and essentially decided that this woman's story was true on face value. Oops. I believe I have stated on more than one occassion that those "some" seemed to have picked a poor horse in this race. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,917 by Brandioch 11/6/01 3:41:25 PM Reply	Once again, "detained". :) "...refused wanding..." Bill, I think you'd better retire with a nice dictionary before you get caught up in these discussions.
Post #16,984 by bepatient 11/6/01 5:12:47 PM Reply	I see you still can't... ...invalidate the point. But the grammar and spelling lessons should come in handy...thanks. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,880 by Silverlock 11/6/01 2:30:23 PM Reply	sigh "Did she refuse to be scanned? NO!" Umm, sorry. The answer to that question is yes. Unless you are using a different definition for the word "refuse". Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,882 by Ashton 11/6/01 2:33:51 PM Reply	See above: there are CONFLICTING claims. WHO lied most?
Post #16,885 by Silverlock 11/6/01 2:44:39 PM Reply	Let's try this shall we? How about a little common sense? Security in aiports is at high alert right now. The security agents are under intense scrutiny right now. More thorough searches/screenings are called for in some random cases and some specific cases (Travelocity purchased tickets). What is more likely, she is/was a PITA who wouldn't cooperate fully with the security agents or the FBI has her on a watch list that flagged her name as a suspected terrorist and was therefore denied access to her flight? I tend to side with the PITA theory myself. And you can't use the evil repo argument with me. I hardly ever agree with the conservatives here as you well know. So I am not predisposed to accept govt versions of stories. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,962 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:38:57 PM Reply	JMFCUTA "And you can't use the evil repo argument with me." Jesus Mother Fucking Christ Up The Ass! WHERE did that quote come from? "How about a little common sense?" How about sticking to quoting ME or the references? Where did you get the evil repo shit?
Post #16,975 by Silverlock 11/6/01 4:51:17 PM Reply	Try to pay attention here I was responding to Ashton. I've already given up on you. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #17,017 by Brandioch 11/6/01 6:22:05 PM Reply	Oops. Wrong window. I thought that was Bill replying to me. Sorry.
Post #16,916 by Brandioch 11/6/01 3:39:06 PM Reply	I can post a quote. You cannot. "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, I've posted a direct quote stating that she submitted to a complete search of her person and her luggage. Now, you do the same. With a statement that >SHE< REFUSED to be screened. That's all you have to do. :)
Post #16,918 by Silverlock 11/6/01 3:44:17 PM Reply	I decline to waste any more time on you Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #16,923 by Another Scott 11/6/01 3:57:25 PM Reply	I'll play, for a while.... [link\|http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/article.html?ID=44958\|Here]. \ufffdShe was uncooperative during the screening process,\ufffd said American Eagle spokesman Kurt Iverson, who added that Oden reportedly would not stand still when security staff tried to wave a metal-detecting wand over her. \ufffdObviously if they can\ufffdt submit to screening, [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations require that they not be allowed to board the plane.\ufffd If a person won't stand still during a screening/search, is it an effective screening/search? I don't think so. If you believe the report above, she didn't stand still for the screening, so she wasn't effectively searched. She was uncooperative, couldn't be effectively searched, and thus was not mistreated by being excluded from the secure area. If you don't believe the report above, and instead believe her account, then something wrong might have happened in her case. So where do you stand? Do you disbelieve the Bangor Daily News account? Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,966 by Brandioch 11/6/01 4:42:43 PM Reply	And there seem to be conflicting reports. Which is why I posted the challenge about attempting to pass security while refusing to be scanned. You start with the reports. You extract the items that seem to be in agreement. What would happen to you if you tried pass security without being screened? Did this happen to her?
Post #16,986 by bepatient 11/6/01 5:14:21 PM Reply	You challenge is still incorrect. Pass security != refuse screening You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #17,020 by Brandioch 11/6/01 6:23:37 PM Reply	Reading with comprehension. "Pass security != refuse screening" That is quite true. That is why you must attempt them both.
Post #17,048 by bepatient 11/6/01 8:36:21 PM Reply	Bah You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,691 by bepatient 11/5/01 5:01:14 PM Reply	Its obvious you don't understand the rules... ..she was denied access to the secured area of the airport. You can't get on a plane without access to the secured area of the airport. She was denied that access because she balked at their security measures...and then got all huffy about it. Too bad. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,693 by Brandioch 11/5/01 5:04:13 PM Reply	Read with comprehension. She stated that she submitted to a complete search of her person and her baggage. No where has that been contradicted. She was not arrested nor detained nor charged with anything. If she had tried to gain access to the secured area AND refused to be searched, she would have been arrested or SOMETHING. But she wasn't. If you don't believe me, why don't YOU try it? Try getting through airport security without submitting to their security measures. Let me know what happens.
Post #16,697 by bepatient 11/5/01 5:07:33 PM Reply	You are not arrested... ...for refusing security...just denied access. Trying to crash security is another issue...and I'm surprised you'd try something like that after the tack you took with Addison's thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,701 by Brandioch 11/5/01 5:12:14 PM Reply	Try it sometime. Go to the check point and REFUSE to allow them to scan you. Don't tell me what will happen. I know what will happen. If you're so positive that you know what will happen, then do it.
Post #16,705 by bepatient 11/5/01 5:16:53 PM Reply	yawn still stretching. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,710 by Brandioch 11/5/01 5:25:17 PM Reply	Your fear tells all. That's right. You're not going to do that. And I know why. Because, once you refused to be scanned, security would haul your ass off to one of the rooms they keep just for that purpose and you'd be talking to the cops and/or FBI. And they don't take these situations casually. But that didn't happen to her. Even with the heightened security in place. But, feel free to make any claims you want to. Just don't bother to back them up. You wouldn't want that on your record.
Post #16,711 by addison 11/5/01 5:28:09 PM Reply	couple of comments from the peanut gallery.... Because, once you refused to be scanned, security would haul your ass off to one of the rooms they keep just for that purpose and you'd be talking to the cops and/or FBI. Nope. they just wouldn't let you past. They'd probably presume you were there to make a scene, they'd politely stop you, and it would only escalate if you attempted to go past them. If you want to refuse, they'd happily let you stand there. But, feel free to make any claims you want to. Just don't bother to back them up. You wouldn't want that on your record. Check out the "Microsoft is Guilty" forum... given what you've said there today, that's rather hypocritical. (sorry for crossing forums) Addison
Post #16,714 by Brandioch 11/5/01 5:35:22 PM Reply	So, prove it. When I said "record", I meant police record. As I would have suspected was evident from the context. You have your opinion of what would happen, I have mine. Since your's would result in zero jail time, why don't you prove it? That's all. It shouldn't take much time. A few minutes to run up to security, attempt to pass and refuse to be scanned. It shouldn't take long at all. PS: Don't cross forums.
Post #16,715 by addison 11/5/01 5:39:44 PM Reply	Re: So, prove it. Since your's would result in zero jail time, why don't you prove it? Because refusing to submit to security, in an airport, is incredibly stupid. And I don' t make a habit of doing stupid things. Much less, to win an argument like this. Hardly worth it. And neither is germane to the main point. Which is that her political affiliation doesn't seem to have been the reason for her problem. PS: Don't cross forums. You make an attack like that, while you're backpedelling and refusing to - on the same day - tough noogies. The forums get crossed, at least for the purposes of pointing that out. Better yet, you stop with the hypocrisy. Addison
Post #16,719 by Brandioch 11/5/01 5:51:08 PM Reply	Your fear tells all. Nothing would happen. So you claimed. "Because refusing to submit to security, in an airport, is incredibly stupid." But you claimed that nothing would happen. But you know that something would happen. Which would prove my position. If nothing would happen, then you have nothing to be afraid of.
Post #16,725 by addison 11/5/01 6:03:39 PM Reply	Re: Your fear tells all. "Because refusing to submit to security, in an airport, is incredibly stupid." But you claimed that nothing would happen. Yep, I did. I'm still pretty sure that's the case. But you know that something would happen. Nope. Not worth taking the chance that something might. But you're right. There's always a chance that I might be the Object Lesson of the day. You know nothing of my "fear"s. Continue with the insults, and they will be returned, with interest compounded. I have nothing to gain by such an act. Further, it would be rude and arrogant and insulting, and I'd damn sure be bothered as hell by some SOB such as yourself doing it. So there's lots of downsides, not the least to my integrity. Fear's not a part. I'm not political, and have nothing to gain. I don't want my name in the paper, I don't "win" in any confrontation. Unlike your subject here. Now, the funny part, is you're so black and white here. But over in that other forum, when presented with B&W evidence contrary to your statement, you aren't. Like I said initially, there's not a sharp edge on "rights' when it comes to lots of people, and the modern world. We've given them up, and for the most part, gained much more than we lost. You can't walk down the interstate, legally, or bicycle down it - but its a public road. If its the only road between where you are and where you want to be, you still can't get on it, without a approved vehicle. An analogous situation. You "lost" the right to progress down a public way. The original statement by you, was due to some problem, yet undetermined the truth of that, in security, she was denied boarding. The reasons for that ability are the protection of other people's rights - something you're ignoring, totally. Addison
Post #16,731 by Brandioch 11/5/01 6:38:11 PM Reply	That is called "fear". "Not worth taking the chance that something might." But nothing will happen. "There's always a chance that I might be the Object Lesson of the day." That is "fear". "Continue with the insults, and they will be returned, with interest compounded." They are not insults. I am showing that your position is in error because you will not do what you say is something that doesn't matter. Because you know what will happen. Even if you have to cloak it in terms of "unlikely possibility". "Further, it would be rude and arrogant and insulting, and I'd damn sure be bothered as hell by some SOB such as yourself doing it." How so? You just go to security, attempt to pass and then leave when they try to scan you. Regarding rights: "We've given them up, and for the most part, gained much more than we lost." Something about giving up freedom for security and deserving neither. "The reasons for that ability are the protection of other people's rights - something you're ignoring, totally." I'm not ignoring them. I just haven't seen anyone give a reason how those rights (or even what rights they were) were affected. Like I said, neither story had anything about other passengers being "jumpy".
Post #16,758 by bepatient 11/5/01 9:22:50 PM Reply	What fear? And again...this is how I know you're talking out of your ass. Airport Security is NOT a police force...they are SECURITY...they have the authority to deny me access to the area that they are tasked to SECURE. Now...they do have the right and the authority to call a member of some police force...local or FBI...if they feel I am committing a crime...but if I walk up to security and say...no...I don't want to be scanned...they have the authority to do nothing but deny me passage. But...of course...[link\|http://209.11.43.206/businesstravelnews/travsource/search_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1035804\|I don't know anything about it.] You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,665 by addison 11/5/01 4:20:30 PM Reply	And.... She ASKED them not to TOUCH her with the wand. She SUBMITTED to a COMPLETE search of her PERSON and her BAGGAGE. We of course KNOW that SHE can be trusted to tell the unvarnished truth, while ANYTHING anybody else says MUST BE LIES. Addison
Post #16,666 by Arkadiy 11/5/01 4:21:16 PM Reply	"Don't touch me" You know, this "request" is just reasonable enough to look good on paper. Depending on the way it was delivered, it could have been the most infuriatingly obnoxious thing she could say. And when she got touched (probably accidentally), she got all squimish and pissed. I can just picture that.... In addition to that, the whole article smells of political "National Enquirer" with some bothersome hysterical bitch mixed in for a good measure. OK, like the previous speaker, I'll take the "bitch" back. :)
Post #16,673 by bepatient 11/5/01 4:42:32 PM Reply	Heh... ...She refused the wand. At that point...she's done. They could have undressed her...hung her upside down....and looked at her make-up with an electron microscope...they STILL are allowed to refuse her passage...because she refused their screening. And you have decided that this is a discussion of "rights"...which, of course, its not...but thats what keeps these discussions lively, isn't it. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,690 by Brandioch 11/5/01 5:01:13 PM Reply	And they didn't. Because? "They could have undressed her...hung her upside down....and looked at her make-up with an electron microscope...they STILL are allowed to refuse her passage...because she refused their screening." Again, that is what you would normally expect them to do, isn't it? But that didn't happen. Why?
Post #16,692 by bepatient 11/5/01 5:02:58 PM Reply	Well now... ...that may have violated some of her >actual< rights. But instead they only violated the one that she made up for the press. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,700 by Brandioch 11/5/01 5:10:19 PM Reply	I'm not following that. You said: "They could have undressed her...hung her upside down....and looked at her make-up with an electron microscope...they STILL are allowed to refuse her passage...because she refused their screening." But they didn't. I asked why they didn't. You said that that would have violated her rights. But if you read your quote again, you'll find that you said they COULD do that. So, if they can do that because she did what she did, how would them doing that violate her rights?
Post #16,708 by bepatient 11/5/01 5:20:04 PM Reply	Um... gee...I'll try and make it sound even MORE rediculous so you might actually comprehend that... ah...fuck it...if you wanna be that dense its your prerogative. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!