thought I would move a point over here from the terr forum

Post #16,777 by boxley 11/5/01 10:40:32 PM Reply	thought I would move a point over here from the terr forum Bandy thinks the woman lost rights to travel by attitudely challenging the folks who searched her. She was told she was banned from that airport for that day. I get pulled over for dui. I pass the field test, tell the cop to fuck off, he wants to breathalyze me I tell him to fuck off, I havnt had anything to drink. I will lose my license, in some states my car and will only travel by bus for 90 days. So Brandi you support my right to drive while rightly refusing a breathalyzer? She didnt want the wand to touch her, why, was she afraid of orgasm by contact? or was she being highly disagreeable, scaring other passengers and pissing off everyone in the area. Your right to fly is the same as my right to drive, subject to highly subjective points of view. thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #16,778 by Brandioch 11/5/01 10:51:16 PM Reply	Show me where it said she refused to be scanned. Suppose you tell the cop to fuck off AND take the breathalyzer AND pass it. And he still yanks your license. Did you lose any rights? Accourding to her story (which was NOT contradicted in the other story),., whe allowed them to search her and her baggage. As I stated in the other forum, anyone who wants to claim otherwise can just march your ass down to the nearest airport, try to get through security without being scanned and see what happens to you. I see a lot of claims about what she did that I have not seen supported by either story. If she refused to be searched and tried to pass security, she wouldn't be banned from the airport. She'd be talking to the cops and/or FBI. Claim whatever you want. She said she passed their search (her and her baggage). The other story did not contradict that.
Post #16,782 by bepatient 11/5/01 11:18:40 PM Reply	The actions of the folks at the airport... ...contradict her story. Or are we now accepting her side of the story as a matter of course...because the Green Party website and the Bangor press didn't explicitly say she "failed" the scan.That makes it so convenient for your world view. The article stated that she balked at being wanded. Thats all it takes to be denied access into what the airlines call the "sterile" area.Can't get into the sterile area..can't fly. (period) And again...airport security is NOT the police. They don't arrest you...they don't detain you. If they feel strongly enough that you are a "bad" person...they can keep you at the check point long enough to hand you over to a >real< policeman. Then...that >real< policman can determine whether or not to detain you.But...of course...since the woman did nothing illegal (she >did< however, do enough to deny her access to her flight)...detaining her would have actually been a potential violation of her rights...instead of this fictitious bullshit you seem to be advocating as a rights violation. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,791 by Brandioch 11/6/01 12:11:14 AM Reply	I wasn't aware there was a zone there. So, you can do enough to be banned from entering a secure area WITHOUT Doing anything illegal. This is a fascinating concept. Of course, I don't believe a word of it. But it's a fascinating concept non the less. I'm very interested in what actions you consider to be this zone. This should make for a fascinating read. And fucking DUH! I said that she would be detained (in a special room set aside for such a purpose) until she could talke to the cops and/or FBI. Didn't you see that part? "And again...airport security is NOT the police. They don't arrest you...they don't detain you." So, you say they "don't detain you". quote. "If they feel strongly enough that you are a "bad" person...they can keep you at the check point long enough to hand you over to a >real< policeman." So, they "can keep you at the check point". But this isn't the same as when you "detain" someone. www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=detain de\ufffdtain: 1.To keep from proceeding; delay or retard. 2.To keep in custody or temporary confinement. I'm sure you know what you're talking about. Really. I'm sure you do.
Post #16,793 by bepatient 11/6/01 12:18:11 AM Reply	do you practice being an idiot? [link\|http://www.flybangor.com/news/index.asp?ID=60\| It appears that the airport folks disagree with how the situation occured] Here is the text of the story compiled by a local reporter regarding the passenger denied boarding for refusing to be screened for a flight. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,795 by Brandioch 11/6/01 12:26:22 AM Reply	Allow me to quote from that article. Seeing as how you seem to have trouble reading it. "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 submitted to a complete search of her person and baggage. This might sound familiar to you as I know I've posted it before. On multiple occasions. Yet you still seem to be unable to grasp the concept. She Submitted To A COMPLETE Search Of Her PERSON And BAGGAGE. That means that she did NOT refuse to be checked by security. Now, perhaps you can answer my earlier question about what activities will get me banned from the security zone BUT will NOT get me arrested or investigated? "detained"?
Post #16,797 by bepatient 11/6/01 12:31:22 AM Reply	I read that part... ...which is what SHE told a reporter...while what I quoted is what the airport authority put on their website when linking to the article. But of course this woman couldn't be doing ANYTHING but telling the truth. If she was...maybe...pissed off at somebody and trying to make a big stink because maybe she's running for Governor and could use the press...well...that just wouldn't be right. Pick a better horse, bud. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,800 by Brandioch 11/6/01 12:41:27 AM Reply	Again, you fail to fulfill the request. What activities are sufficient to get me banned from the secure area but will not result in the cops and/or FBI being interested in me? I did not see anything in either article that said she did not submit to the search. That she complained about it, yes. That she didn't want to be TOUCHED with the wand, yes. That she wasn't holding still, yes. Never that she refused to be searched. Instead, you claim that the activities of the airline personel are evidence that she didn't submit to the search. Which led me to challenge you to go to your nearest airport, try to pass security and then REFUSE to be searched, then leave. A challenge you would not accept because, even though you claim nothing would happen, you KNOOW what the results would be (cops and/or FBI). Since this did not happen to her, I'm going to take it as evidence in support of her claim to have been searched. No, that does not mean I believe everything she says. It means that the available evidence supports her claims. But why am I explaining this to someone who doesn't know what "detain" means?
Post #16,803 by bepatient 11/6/01 12:50:03 AM Reply	yawn... ...read the other post... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,799 by drewk 11/6/01 12:36:02 AM Reply	Since we're being pedantic Let's try emphasizing a different part of the quote: Oden said Isn't there some famous qhote about first being sure of the facts? I think all we have right now is two (moderately) conflicting versions of the story. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #16,801 by Brandioch 11/6/01 12:43:04 AM Reply	Sure. But that will require access to the security tapes.
Post #16,811 by Ashton 11/6/01 2:56:35 AM Reply	Re: The actions of the folks at the airport... Given that there are contradicting reports about her attitude, behavior - and the possibility she was singled out for political reasons OR for method of ticket purchase: One could.. flip coin and start parsing the conflicts and their severity, starting at 50/50 (?) Why is it that - before reading any replies on the original thread, BP - I just kinda Knew your initial response would be to: 1) Believe the Authority's version + any of their implied justifications (like the ever-unprovable 'attitude', say). 2) Automatically place in the scale against the individual: the worst of the possible implications, with presumption that her version is automatically more suspect than any Authority's 'official' version? (We all know that Authorities never CYA, after-the-fact, don't we?) Your record in previous he State/Human matters of similar sort - is ~ 100%. With those odds, next time I can place a safe bet on your initial take: but who'd cover it? (Just thought I'd mention it - you appear fond of stats) Ashton
Post #16,816 by bepatient 11/6/01 7:59:44 AM Reply	Give me a break... ...its not actions of the "State" versus anything...its a pissed off customer with a venue to the press. Oh >yeah<....she's credible. Oh...but she's a member of the Green Party...that means (for you and Brandi apparently)...that this woman is the PARAGON OF VIRTUE. Just the attitude of the FBI statement shows you that...until this woman told them she was Green...they had no clue...which throws this whole conspiricy theory out the window. They stopped her because she refused to be screened. That is NOT an arrestable offense (even though Brandioch seems to think the only reason you can be denied boarding is to break the law...and that being denied passage guarantees you an hour in a small room with some FBI geek). But... again... she's an "alternative" politician. She's >your< hero. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,862 by Brandioch 11/6/01 1:37:25 PM Reply	Rationality is beyond you. "Oh...but she's a member of the Green Party...that means (for you and Brandi apparently)...that this woman is the PARAGON OF VIRTUE." No. Why do you say that? All I've been saying is that she seemed to be singled out because of her politics for increased security which she objected to (but submitted to) and was then denied her right to contract with a company for travel. "Just the attitude of the FBI statement shows you that...until this woman told them she was Green...they had no clue...which throws this whole conspiricy theory out the window." Ummm, when was the FBI involved? In fact, I recall posting that, because the FBI was NOT involved, it supported her claims. Would you provide a reference or link to the FBI's involvement? "They stopped her because she refused to be screened." Please quote the part where it is said she refused to be screened. I've already quoted the part where she says she submitted to a complete search of her person and baggage. "That is NOT an arrestable offense ..........." Again, I have asked you and another to prove this. Just go to the airport, attempt to pass security, refuse to be scanned and then leave. But you don't want to do that. You are afraid. You know you'd be arrested (or at least chatting with the local cops and/or FBI). But this would support my position so you'll just bluster about how it wouldn't happen. "She's >your< hero." Nope. This is another of your mental gymnastics. More extremes from you. I don't know who she is. I don't care who she is. But you have to invest my opinion with some personal ties to her. The point is that she did not break the law, yet she had her right to contract with a company infringed upon. There was no due process. She was singled out for additional investigation. Her civil right to contract with a company was infringed upon ILLEGALLY. You can attach whatever hallucination you want to that, but that is the whole of the matter.
Post #16,868 by Another Scott 11/6/01 2:11:14 PM Reply	Was she "singled out"? It seems to me that if she wasn't "singled out" based on her name, party affiliation, previous published remarks, etc., then what happened has to be considered in a different light. Agreed? It seems that she was a minor celebrity in Maine. E.g. [link\|http://www.tao.ca/~ban/899maine.htm\|here's] a story about her commending vandals who destroyed a field of GM corn in 1999. Other stories about her are available as well. We have 2 versions of what happened at the Bangor airport. None of us was there. Let's consider motives. What motive would the airline clerk (who marked her ticket to indicate she should be searched more thoroughly) have for singling her out? Airlines are hurting for business. Why would they unfairly, intentionally make a customer angry? Why would a clerk risk potential complaints from a customer to his/her superiors? Oden said, \ufffdI was treated if I were guilty just because I\ufffdm a dissident and I speak out.\ufffd How does she know this? It may be her perception, but nothing in the newspaper story indicates this is the case. While an FBI spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny the presence of any name on the terrorist watch list \ufffd another trigger for added security response \ufffd one law enforcement source said it was \ufffdextremely unlikely\ufffd Oden was on the list of potential terrorists because her name is unknown to the FBI. It seems to me the more reasonable explanation of the events is in the Bangor newpaper account. I take that account as being more credible. As such, I don't think she was singled out because of her politics. Since she wasn't singled out because of her politics, but apparently singled out at random because of the way she purchased her ticket, I don't think that she was treated unfairly. She apparently didn't behave appropriately: \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 She was uncooperative, so she was denied entry to the secure area. Simple as that. She wasn't denied rights to purchase a ticket. She could purchase a ticket, she simply couldn't use it that day from that airport. My $0.02. I don't imagine we'll convince each other to change our minds. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #16,873 by bepatient 11/6/01 2:19:46 PM Reply	You keep inventing rights... and ignoring my posts...and not reading the entire story. And... Statement on Security Incident Involving Nancy Oden 11/5/01 The Bangor International Airport has received several inquiries regarding an incident where Ms. Nancy Oden was denied boarding on a flight from Bangor to Chicago. Based on the number of inquiries, we thought it would be appropriate to post an explanation on our web site. Following the events of September 11th, a variety of additional security procedures were implemented at all airports across the country. The use of random and targeted screening has increased and affected numerous individuals, the vast majority of whom have cooperated with these additional requirements. Ms. Oden was selected by the airline's booking/computer system for additional scrutiny, apparently on the basis of the manner in which the ticket was purchased. This scrutiny had nothing to do with her political party affiliation or activities--they were unknown at the time. Many passengers each day are subjected to same level of inspection that was applied to Ms. Oden. Ms. Oden was refused boarding after she failed to cooperate with required passenger screening protocols. The decision to not allow her to board the aircraft was made by several airline security supervisors in conjunction with City screening personnel and a police officer assigned to the airport. While National Guard personnel were present, they do not have the decision making authority on who should/should not be permitted to board. This additional screening is mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. Any individual has the right to refuse screening but, if passengers are not willing to undergo the required screening, they will not be allowed to board their flights. These procedures are designed to ensure the safety of the traveling public and do not discriminate against any particular group of people. These security requirements appear to be supported by the vast majority of those passengers using our airport, including those asked to undergo additional screening procedures. Please make sure to READ THE SECOND TO LAST PARAGRAPH!!! Because it proves that I know what I'm talking about and you are talking out of your ass. Here, let me pull it out so we are perfectly clear... Any individual has the right to refuse screening but, if passengers are not willing to undergo the required screening, they will not be allowed to board their flights. Did you understand that? That means that I can walk right up to security and refuse to be screened...and they can deny me access...which seems to me to be what I've been telling you all along. Have you figured out that she was NOT targeted because of affiliation to the greens? While an FBI spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny the presence of any name on the terrorist watch list \ufffd another trigger for added security response \ufffd one law enforcement source said it was \ufffdextremely unlikely\ufffd Oden was on the list of potential terrorists because her name is unknown to the FBI. In other words...the FBI said....Nancy WHO? Maybe American Airlines hates the Green Party so they listed her? How did you phrase that..."What....EVER". Or maybe...just maybe...she bought her ticket on Travelocity...like the majority of the terrorists of 9/11 and was flagged because of THAT and not because she was green. But that would be what I've been saying all along...and heaven forbid >you< have to admit that >I< was right. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,887 by JayMehaffey 11/6/01 2:55:18 PM Reply	The odd thing You get upset with others for blindly accepting the Green party version of this event. But your willing to blindly accept the version put out by the airport itself. Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture? Jay
Post #16,889 by Brandioch 11/6/01 2:56:18 PM Reply	Your fear........ "Any individual has the right to refuse screening but, if passengers are not willing to undergo the required screening, they will not be allowed to board their flights." Yes, I know that if I do not submit to the security procedures, I will not board that plane. Congratulations, you've proven a point that NO ONE has been discussing. What was that I said about you and reality? "Did you understand that? That means that I can walk right up to security and refuse to be screened...and they can deny me access...which seems to me to be what I've been telling you all along." No. Once again, you're trying to re-direct the discussion. What >I< said was that if you did that, you'd be facing the local cops and/or FBI. I >NEVER< said that you couldn't refuse. Just that, if you DID refuse, you'd be talking to the local cops and/or FBI. I >NEVER< said that you could board a plane after refusing to be scanned. Just that, if you DID refuse, you'd be talking to the local cops and/or FBI. Which was the whole purpose of my challenging you to PROVE you're right and DO THAT> Just go to your nearest airport and attempt to cross security without being scanned. How much simpler can I make that? Just follow those simple steps. #1. Go to the airport. #2. Go through security without being scanned. Is that simple enough? Instead, I think you're going to attempt to "prove" something I've never claimed nor stated. Feel free to do so. I bet it's a lot easier for you to do that than to address the actual issues. Your position is that she refused to be screened, resulting in her not being allowed on the plane. My position is that, if she had refused to be screened, she'd be talking to the local cops and/or FBI. To "prove" that, I challenged you to do so. Attempt to pass security without being screened. If you had, you'd be facing the local cops and/or FBI. Since she didn't face the local cops and/or FBI, she didn't refuse to be screened. Therefore, she was screened. Which means that she complied with the rules and should have been allowed to board the plane. But she wasn't allowed to board the plane. Which is where the problem is.
Post #16,893 by bepatient 11/6/01 3:06:49 PM Reply	yawn...again The woman that you're talking about DID, in fact, according to the relevent authority, refuse screening. Was she arrested? No. That seems to disprove your POV. Oh...and the airport authority telling you that you can refuse additional screening seems to not be acceptable to you either. What "reality" are you looking for? The rest of your post is sheer idiocy...where you seem to try and bait me into a discussion about CRASHING security as opposed to refusing additional screening. And >you< say.... "Once again, you're trying to re-direct the discussion." riiiigghhht You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,901 by Brandioch 11/6/01 3:17:58 PM Reply	Quote it. "The woman that you're talking about DID, in fact, according to the relevent authority, refuse screening. " You made that statement. You provide support for it. Link or quote. For some reason, I don't think you'll be able to do that.
Post #16,906 by bepatient 11/6/01 3:23:32 PM Reply	yawn yet again I quoted the entire official statement to you. Even pulled out a highlight. Find it yourself...since you're so smart. Try [link\|http://www.flybangor.com\|http://www.flybangor.com] under news.... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,910 by Brandioch 11/6/01 3:28:52 PM Reply	Like I said, you wouldn't be able to do it. Because that quote does NOT exist. But, feel free to keep claiming that it does. And keep refering to the whole article. Rather than doing as I did and quoting the relevent text, in my posts.
Post #16,925 by bepatient 11/6/01 3:59:30 PM Reply	Since you obviously are incapable... ...of going back 4 posts in the threaded discussion software... Ms. Oden was refused boarding after she failed to cooperate with required passenger screening protocols. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,929 by Ashton 11/6/01 4:02:01 PM Reply	Yep: that IS what 'They' said. Not what 'She' said. Again.
Post #16,942 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:20:03 PM Reply	yep... ...and seeing air and airport rage in the first person on MANY occassions...and considering that this is Bangor fucking Maine, and considering that they only felt compelled to answer after several inquiries (meaning they thought this was "no big deal"...I would have a tendency to side with them in this case. In the case of the photographer, I am most decidedly in HIS court against an over-zealous week-end warrior (who...Me?...why he was disrespecting my AUTHORITAAA) But, of course, you need to see me as bowing to all relevant authority...so go ahead. It will keep it simple for you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,904 by Ashton 11/6/01 3:22:46 PM Reply	Bingo! again, you betcha "according to relevant Authority" \ufffd Yup - never MIND: the OTHER version. Automatically. Like clockwork. Tick. Tick. Tick. Q. E. D. A.
Post #16,892 by Ashton 11/6/01 3:02:56 PM Reply	This is some MORE = NEW 'rewrite' of the same. Yet: It is still a merely 'formalized' re-presentation of the original conflict portrayed YESTERDAY in these threads. Just slightly rephrased: no new INFORMATION except from ONE side. Given that we STILL DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT DATA about what might actually have occurred from start to finish: as by say - a number of witnesses who corroborate each other (?): This has been an exercise re WHICH SIDE a one automatically heads for (?) YOURS is as apparent as it is repetitive: the individual, in your eyes is obviously MORE LIKELY to have been WRONG -- whenever there is a CONFLICT! Q.E. fucking D. And contrary to your automatic and smarmy assumptions - gotta watch those assumptions; it isn't good even in Economic Theory 101, BeeP - I don't give a flying fsck whether this person was Green, Reddish Indian or a Republican Party Charwoman. Nor do you: she questioned authority and.. THAT is impermissible in your circumcised ^h -scribed worldview. Pattern-recognition is a terrible thing to waste, Oh Stat-groupie. Should I ignore your stats then ?? A.
Post #16,899 by bepatient 11/6/01 3:17:13 PM Reply	Question authority? No. Refuse mandatory screening. Yes. If she has a problem with airline security...she has every right to go to Chicago by train, car, bus..assuming that she doesn't refuse >their< security measures as well. Or maybe...because some people don't like it...we should just eliminate security altogether? At least we won't have anyone feeling like their rights are being violated. You never know who thinks they're the cat's meow... I bet the folks at the airport have >never< heard the words..."Don't you know who I am????" You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,911 by Ashton 11/6/01 3:29:20 PM Reply	Yes, Authority may have told a truer? version here. but WE DON'T KNOW [YET!] <<< but YOU ARE pretty SURE - automatically. And from the FIRST. (On my jury: first free challenge for Cause. Your Honor, this person has demonstrated an innate prejudice to the point of predictability - for believing whatever story an Authority tells him. Here are some printouts. Sustained. Next?) A.
Post #16,927 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:01:46 PM Reply	Really simple... ...pick a position. Attack both sides...if your position is "we don't know" then quit riding my back and straddle both horses...ok cowboy? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,930 by Ashton 11/6/01 4:06:32 PM Reply	Oh I am straddling both horses: You Picked Automatically. We cowboys have seen lots of cattle and sheep led to slaughter, and we are quite athletic except.. when jumping to a conclusion with eyes closed: we're too smart to fall for That one. Twice.
Post #16,936 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:14:42 PM Reply	No we're not... ...or haven't you noticed your decided lack of posts following the other horse. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,953 by Ashton 11/6/01 4:32:35 PM Reply	Must straddling be explained too? Only a lawyer would confuse the idea of Devil's Advocate with: sufficient data to determine who IS the 'Devil', in a certain postulated situation. It's only a useful ploy where enough facts are known - otherwise it's just cant, from prior Conviction. This entire thread could have been summarized yesterday with, "Last Post: We don't know enough yet, to guess which side is lying the more." But instead it has proven a rather spread-out Rorschak of personal proclivities, when only an imaginary scenario is available. Amazing what the character map of this unknown woman has become: without any knowledge of her! except an association with a political party. (Seems likely to be a true-factoid, that membership) Gosh - just like those Repubs to diss a Green. Just like those Greens to dis a Repub. Just like those Demos and Repubs.. to dis anyone with a mind. ..and we're supposed to be smarter than your average sheep! Baa Baa
Post #16,959 by bepatient 11/6/01 4:36:20 PM Reply	But I've given you my reasoning... ...do with it what you will. And its NOT just because she's Green and they are Authority. Shame that doesn't fit with what you believe me to be. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,982 by Ashton 11/6/01 5:04:13 PM Reply	Sorry: I must have believed my statistics. Too. :[
Post #16,787 by boxley 11/5/01 11:41:55 PM Reply	suppose she refused to have the wand touch her. This indicated a "cunt" in action. The person male/female saw an attitude and got defensive. Result banned from airport. I take a field sobriety test, pass tell the osssifer to fuck off then take breathalyzer, tell ossifer to fuck off, will I walk home or drive? you try it and report back. I will win the case but my car will be towed I will walk home and will be a target every time I drive. If you want to piss off the airport folks go ahead you have a right to. It is not illegal but it will make it inconvenient to fly anywhere. example !984 ny eve. Driving my torino which looked like serious whisky blisters. I dont drink and drive as a matter of course. Wanted to hit a lot of parties with my wife. I was pulled over 5 times between 1 & 3. Asked the last guy to put it over the radio I was not drinking and please cut a tad of slack. Being friendly each and everytime I got cut slack. unnerstand the concept? thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #16,789 by Brandioch 11/6/01 12:01:03 AM Reply	Police State FINALLY you are starting to see the picture. Not that she did anything wrong. If it was wrong, she would have been arrested. Instead, like with your example, the people with the authority abuse that authority and her rights are infringed upon. You'd win the court case, but you'd be a target for police harassment. She didn't do anything wrong and can bring a civil action against them for infringing upon her civil rights. "Being friendly each and everytime I got cut slack." Cooperate with the authorities and your life will be much easier. This is a philosophical difference between us.
Post #16,790 by bepatient 11/6/01 12:04:41 AM Reply	They didn't infringe upon her civil rights. She has no case. Wake up, bub. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #16,792 by boxley 11/6/01 12:12:53 AM Reply	ya gotta pick yer fights I dont claim to be a paragon chi 68 van 72 height 69 santa monica 69 been a bro to charles, rider of bikes, fought with xians in chad, wrong end of Zimbabwa was on my way to ahfganistan for the 3rd visit since 77 when I got side tracked in AK. I have been fscked by the badge as well as the movements.There is a time and place. You pick a fight and ride it until the end. You will not be flying anywhere until the USSC rules. If you have the time and energy, go for it. I dont have either at this time. Doesnt mean I am not sympathetic, I am. I cant do it this time, I pass the baton to you, go to the airport, call me before hand, and I will get you good press as you are banned from flying while the courts dedcide. peace, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
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]
Post #17,189 by Simon_Jester 11/7/01 3:35:35 PM Reply	heh..only thing I know is... I'm not going to go flying any time soon. Who wants all this hassle?

Welcome to IWETHEY!