Post #16,874
11/6/01 2:21:42 PM
|
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
11/6/01 2:58:48 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:09:13 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:15:36 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:19:00 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:34:10 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:47:26 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:02:01 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:16:25 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:23:14 PM
|
Prove it.
This is easily solvable.
Just do what I said to do.
No need to discuss it.
Just do it.
|
Post #16,950
11/6/01 4:26:52 PM
|
Spell it out.
Don't be coy. What is your specific challenge.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #16,955
11/6/01 4:33:16 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:42:01 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:45:10 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:59:21 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:57:12 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:10:51 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:25:13 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:30:26 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:48:43 PM
|
Quote it. If you can.
Claim whatever you want.
Just reference it.
|
Post #16,980
11/6/01 5:00:23 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:59:20 PM
|
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
11/6/01 9:53:33 PM
|
did
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #16,895
11/6/01 3:11:21 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:26:00 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:55:51 PM
|
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
11/6/01 4:16:21 PM
|
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
11/6/01 3:45:09 PM
|
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
11/6/01 9:52:21 PM
|
didnt
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
