Post #16,695
11/5/01 5:06:08 PM
|
She wasn't arrested or detained or charged.
So, what was the complaint(s) about her again?
|
Post #16,820
11/6/01 8:33:28 AM
|
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
11/6/01 2:15:08 PM
|
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
11/6/01 2:17:43 PM
|
ie Words to Live-By, Cratchit: *Never Question Authority\ufffd*
|
Post #16,875
11/6/01 2:22:14 PM
|
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
11/6/01 2:32:15 PM
|
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
11/6/01 2:36:18 PM
|
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
11/6/01 2:55:49 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:41:25 PM
|
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
11/6/01 5:12:47 PM
|
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
11/6/01 2:30:23 PM
|
*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
11/6/01 2:33:51 PM
|
See above: there are *CONFLICTING* claims. WHO lied most?
|
Post #16,885
11/6/01 2:44:39 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:38:57 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:51:17 PM
|
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
11/6/01 6:22:05 PM
|
Oops. Wrong window.
I thought that was Bill replying to me.
Sorry.
|
Post #16,916
11/6/01 3:39:06 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:44:17 PM
|
I decline to waste any more time on you
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #16,923
11/6/01 3:57:25 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:42:43 PM
|
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
11/6/01 5:14:21 PM
|
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
11/6/01 6:23:37 PM
|
Reading with comprehension.
"Pass security != refuse screening"
That is quite true.
That is why you must attempt them both.
|
Post #17,048
11/6/01 8:36:21 PM
|
Bah
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
