Post #16,862
11/6/01 1:37:25 PM
|
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
11/6/01 2:11:14 PM
|
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
11/6/01 2:19:46 PM
|
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
11/6/01 2:55:18 PM
|
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
11/6/01 2:56:18 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:06:49 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:17:58 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:23:32 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:28:52 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:59:30 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:02:01 PM
|
Yep: that IS what 'They' said. Not what 'She' said. Again.
|
Post #16,942
11/6/01 4:20:03 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:22:46 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:02:56 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:17:13 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:29:20 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:01:46 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:06:32 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:14:42 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:32:35 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:36:20 PM
|
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
11/6/01 5:04:13 PM
|
Sorry: I must have believed my statistics. Too. :[
|
