Oh, you were definitely right

Post #16,967 by drewk 11/6/01 4:43:40 PM Reply	Oh, you were definitely right She just made it very clear what she was thinking. She is convinced she was picked for search based on her political views. Couldn't be because of how she bought the ticket, oh no, it has to be because of her political views. Because we all care so much about her importance. Then, when she balks -- passive resistance? No passive resistance is saying "No." Playing lame and slowing down is called "passive agressive," different thing -- and they get more insistent, it must be because she challenged their manhood. (Wait, I thougt this was about her political views. Nevermind.) It couldn't possibly be that these stupid, untrained kids with machine guns might recognize obvious contempt and intentional resistance. She has conditioned herself to see the oppression of "the man" at every turn. She creates major confrontations based on here paranoid conclusions. And she takes the outcome of these confrontations -- and what are the chances the outcome will be bad when she clearly initiated the conflict? -- she takes this as confirmation of her premise. Well, on the bright side, she confirms what my mother always taught me: You can change the world. Assume no one likes you, start fights for no reason, and eventually no onw will like you. See how easy that is? Create the world you want to live in in three easy steps. 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 #16,990 by bepatient 11/6/01 5:28:40 PM Reply	And all the while... ...she's doing this in a tiny airport in front of all the other passengers. It would be nice to have a witness account of this...because after reading this piece I'm inclined to believe her even less than before...she's air rage waiting to happen...DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM...YOUR DOING THIS BECAUSE I'M IMPORTANT...YOU DON'T LIKE ME BECAUSE I'M A STRONG WOMAN ACTIVIST" Instead...she takes this attitude and does everything EXACTLY WRONG. The guard yells bring your bags to make sure he's heard...she takes it as "he wants to embarass me"...she slows down...when security is under massive pressure to speed things up...she's OBVIOUSLY belligerent to these people...just based on the tone of her own article... My question...did she actually WANT to fly? Because she sure seems to have approached this entire situation just to make a scene. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #17,003 by Ashton 11/6/01 6:00:17 PM Reply	Am I reading the same link as you characterized ? Interesting. The &$%& site eliminates hi-liting for copy. So here're a few: 1) That she WAS picked for her political affiliation, is surely as rational an implication as ticket-origin. (Read someone else's first-person post today re having ALSO purchased from web = and NOT being marked S) That she was singled-out, was TOLD to her from the FIRST! "He put an S on my pass". 2) "I tried to help with the zipper".. He grabbed my arm.. Sr. guy shook head 'no' to the grabber<<< "I hadn't done anything except pull away from him" (as he was beginning a Sept 11 lecture in her face, I add). Is this a true version? If not, why not? How would you know? 3) Yes she editorializes and imputes mindsets of her adversaries (no more valid coming from her than from anyone) - but NOT in her reporting of the events: Her story or His story! remains the dilemma still; for anyone without a certain mindset about 'uppity females' cough* or a certain agreeableness to Official stories, after-the-fact - over any individual's story - after the fact. 4) AA guy says - AFTER THE SEARCH IS PASSED: "Maybe we can get you on the 4:00 ..." She opines to self (and to us in her report here) "I felt, OK let's put up with this aggravation now.." (State-of-mind report -- is she lying here? Too?) 5) "They gave the other airlines my name.." etc. And you read this report (edited for her imputations of others' 'thoughts' of course) and - you see her as the aggressor and one deserving of: being singled out for her political affiliation AND harassed from the get-go? The bitch deserved what she got?? Is that your automatic take on this [still incomplete, She says / They say] 'report'? Y'know - there are often reasons why women 'expect' certain treatment from (anonymous) men, especially teens in camouflage uniform (say) - just as the epithet 'bitch', tossed around here now quite often: makes clear that women are hardly alone in toting around caricatures, ready for Instant mindless Application. A pox on both houses. Ashton A Son of one o' those 'Bitches', no doubt. My Mother'd have eaten a 20-something Gyrene for lunch - she was ahead of her time, in the "shufflin Yassa Mr. Boss" game.
Post #17,182 by drewk 11/7/01 3:17:12 PM Reply	Are you even reading what I posted? 1. Why she was picked: For her to assume first and only that it was because of her political affilitation shows that she believes "they" find her to be dangerous (important!) enough to worry about. Unless she has advocated violence before, I don't think Green Party affiliation would qualify for that. (When I first mistakenly thought she was with Greenpeace, this would have been more likely.) 2. If you are inspecting bags and someone reaches for the one you have -- something in the one you have? -- wouldn't you try to prevent that? "Help with a zipper"? That doesn't sound likely. And the Spet 11 lecture: can you honestly picture that reaction being the security person's first words to the woman? It doesn't sound plausible. 3. Yes, it is still "her story his story." Be she has now disclosed her mindset before, during and after the event. It makes me more likely to believe the official version, as her self-reported mindset more closely matches the official version of the "facts" than her own. And I don't appreciate the implication that my conclusion is based on my feelings about "uppity females." It is in fact based on my feelings about anyone who is a professional activist for a specific cause: I beleive they often tend to see malicious intentions behind innocent actions. 4. No, I believe she decided she had made her point. 5. Of course they gave the other airlines her name. They all use the same terminal. If she is not allowed into the terminal, they shouldn't go to the trouble of selling her a ticket. And you read this report (edited for her imputations of others' 'thoughts' of course) and - you see her as the aggressor and one deserving of: being singled out for her political affiliation AND harassed from the get-go? Where did I say that? No, I believe I said that she was initially singled out for some reason that most likely had nothing to do with ehr political affiliation. But that her reaction to being singled out is what brought on her eventual exclusion from the terminal. The bitch deserved what she got?? Is that your automatic take on this [still incomplete, She says / They say] 'report'? Y'know - there are often reasons why women 'expect' certain treatment from (anonymous) men, especially teens in camouflage uniform (say) - just as the epithet 'bitch', tossed around here now quite often: makes clear that women are hardly alone in toting around caricatures, ready for Instant mindless Application. Unless I missed it somewhere, you're the only one throwing around the epithet. And my take was not automatic. If you'll notice, I didn't post anything on this until after I saw her side of it. And, as I thought I made clear, it was her own words that convinced me she probably was escalating the event based on her preconceived agenda. Yes, there are a bunch of undertrained, ill-prepared young men (and women) being given an awful lot of authority and responsibility. Some of them are probably over-reaching their authority. But I think it makes more sense to make an issue of it when you are sure of the reason for being singled out, as with the reporter barred from flying because of a book. 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 #17,188 by Ashton 11/7/01 3:34:42 PM Reply	Yes I read and appreciate the expansion. Yours may even be ~ an impartial evaluation of "what likely occurred" - as near as anyone ever gets to actuality [not very, most always IMhO]. You did not jump-in from initial rampant guesstimates. Still - the import of this case hinges upon nuance at every turn: as to how well/poorly? she revealed her putative attitude in body language and actions. But regarding just that: we have only summaries from the oopposing, contradictory players. We have claims. Period. No reports in detail from - enough uninvolved bystanders so as to suggest.. some credence is deserved. It's still Yes/No take yer pick! I reiterate: this entire tempest/teapot has been about Rorschaks about Which conclusion will be jumped-to, and from which proclivity one has. IMhO. A.
Post #17,191 by Silverlock 11/7/01 3:44:12 PM Reply	Bullst So now I'm an authority loving, green hating control freak? Or so the implication goes. "I reiterate: this entire tempest/teapot has been about Rorschaks about Which conclusion will be jumped-to, and from which proclivity one has. IMhO." You have** to know better than that. As far as my "proclivities" go, I am about as anti-authoritarian as they come. So, speaking as one who once had the nickname "Don the Hippy", I still think she acted the bitch and got up the nose of the security guards. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA.
Post #17,199 by bepatient 11/7/01 4:35:06 PM Reply	Nah big D... So now I'm an authority loving, green hating control freak? Or so the implication goes. I think he meant those to be >my< proclivities. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #17,206 by Ashton 11/7/01 4:53:01 PM Reply	Nahh BeeP: you ain't Really That kind of asshole; You just play one on Tee Vee and in the forums. [I think...] I mean, if you believed half of the Econo-Terrorism you preach, you'd have hair growing inside your nose and ears. (What? You have ?? er, well) Ashton True Conservative - read it and weep. Whadda You got to 'Conserve' ? (Besides the Holy Market-Forces God, that is)
Post #17,211 by bepatient 11/7/01 5:10:17 PM Reply	Right...I'm a completely different type of asshole! :-) Call me Miyagi... In Forum...must have balance...Ashton-san... Miyagi provide balance... Besides...I hardly ever have to shave my ears anymore ;) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #17,216 by Ashton 11/7/01 5:28:34 PM Reply	Apologies BeeP :[ I have no excuse from the syntax Pohlice. (But even if you were an asshole.. you'd be Our Asshole, y'know? ;-) Damn.. can't even get an apology right! ..it must be the Daemon Influence of those alien cabalistic rituals, practiced by the Hairy-eared Ainu. No. Fair. Ashton \| Our Motto a dead chicken on every doorknob
Post #17,234 by bepatient 11/7/01 7:05:44 PM Reply	Smiley was there...Ashton-san You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #17,200 by Ashton 11/7/01 4:38:21 PM 11/7/01 4:47:22 PM Reply	Nothing of the sort, unless it is. My comment stands, and was a reply to Drook. I found the original caricatures of this woman - too predictable to follow from 'analysis of facts', of which there were few. Still. We've seen just summaries of the events by contradictory 'version'. It is still so: whatever her internal opinion, we're just guessing about its transparency. She says she did not 'act out' her opinion of the guard (merely attempted to explain what she thought it was: to us). Was the 'zipper help gesture' sufficient grounds to imagine she was about to detonate some &(%)&* suicidal Bomb? - Sure.. if yer on 100% adrenaline and the 'S' means (to you) that she's likely a moll of an Imam! Imagination Rulez. There and sometimes here. Have you never encountered a person behaving patently officiously and equally predictably: and withheld acting on your er 'insight'? Think she could manage that? And given that she was pre-selected - do you really think it strange that she might associate that with recent criticism of an Administration whose Spokes-puppet recently said on the Tee Vee Watch what you say* !* Only a geek would imagine she'd associate web-purchase with "S"elected. IMO. Sorry, no - whatever her internal dialogue from experience was - we don't know WHICH of those stories is nearer the Rashomon panorama of 'truths' Ashton Whose beard started long before it became a Badge, but then I kept it anyway - just to freak out Puritans before breakfast. Seen Real hippies and beats before that; kinfolk. City Lights bookstore in SF. Met Ferlinghetti; went into the Black Cat (when mostly special gurlz hung out there) yada Credentials? PS: I find much to disagree with re the Green Party. This woman is no more a fount of wisdom than yer average Reactionary masquerading as some sorta 'conservative' euphemism. (I Got Mine - so Fuck You\ufffd Inc.) Whatever happened to the great puppy-dog Murican underdog bias: that one at least had a kernel of instinctive 'truth' in it !? Enjoy your flight :-) Edited by Missing User 70 Nov. 7, 2001, 04:47:22 PM EST Expand All History
Post #17,202 by Silverlock 11/7/01 4:50:11 PM Reply	Re: Credentials None but the nickname. :) Don Richards, recipient of the ABBA.
Post #17,209 by Ashton 11/7/01 5:02:05 PM Reply	Misspoke here.. Credentials? meant - izzat enough? Not - 'Prove you are You' (!) I'm with Dick Feynman (credentials ~ awards) Awards is epaulets.. (re Nobel and others) OK.. I did win a Silver bugle once ;-) A.
Post #17,208 by Another Scott 11/7/01 4:55:41 PM Reply	Come on, Ashton. Was the 'zipper help gesture' sufficient grounds to imagine she was about to detonate some &(%)& suicidal Bomb? - Sure.. if yer on 100% adrenaline and the 'S' means (to you) that she's likely a moll of an Imam! Have you flown on a commercial flight in the last few years? If so, you may recall signs near the security checkpoints which say things like, [link\|http://www.faa.gov/apa/pr/pr.cfm?id=1184\|this]: \ufffd Do not joke about having a bomb or firearm in your possession. Security personnel are trained to react when they hear these words. Penalties can be severe, and can include time in prison and fines. These rules were in place before 9/11. The security personnel may have over reacted. She apparently wasn't a threat. But that's not the issue. The security personnel have to be able to do their job whether a potential passenger is a threat or not. To apparently claim that her not following instructions (according to one report) was OK (since she wasn't going to immolate the people at the checkpoint or on the plane) and thus should be OK to fly is a bit much. If telling jokes about bombs can get one jail time, then I don't see how not following instructions during a search and missing a flight is such a draconian measure. Being able to fly from a commercial airport isn't a right. Your point about not having impartial observers is good. But your arguments about the inferences we can draw based on what we do know don't work too well, IMHO. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #17,212 by Ashton 11/7/01 5:20:21 PM Reply	Tilt! What are you talking about? There were NO BOMB JOKES or gestures as far as I heard anywhere! I was merely imagining the worst interpretation a guard might have given to, her having reached over to help with a zipper THAT is what she said she did and why (she said) she did it. Have you some new information which can properly attach a more sinister take to the event? Aside from imagining one, that is? He grabbed her arm. I said the above - as justification for maybe why he did so. I (nor you) HAVE NO IDEA what actually transpired in that mini-slice of the overall soap opera. "Not following instructions". That is suitably vague so as to encompass her body stance, her facial expression, the imputation of an S on her gate-pass, the fear of a newbie 'Inspector' -- and ALL the REST. What does it MEAN ?? {Sheesh} My arguments about the inferences we might properly draw, stand: very few. Most HAVE drawn them and embellished deep down into her mindset, ergo: She MUST have also ____! oO0HH.!. Simply, I say - these are projections from fucking Insufficient data. EOF That's my take on what I have read. We'll talk when something comes in from an uninvolved witness or preferably at least three. Ashton It's neither a Green nor a Red thing. It's about character assassination via innuendo.
Post #17,221 by Another Scott 11/7/01 5:53:02 PM Reply	OK, I'll try again. I'll try to be clearer. There were NO BOMB JOKES or gestures as far as I heard anywhere! I was merely imagining the worst interpretation a guard might have given to, her having reached over to help with a zipper THAT is what she said she did and why (she said) she did it. Have you some new information which can properly attach a more sinister take to the event? Aside from imagining one, that is? My attempted point was that things are different at airport security checkpoints than at other places in society. We all know this. One of the differences is that jokes about bombs can result in jail time. I'm not saying that she said anything about a bomb. But along with the restriction about jokes, there are implicit (and maybe explicit, I haven't checked) expectations that potential passengers will cooperate with the security personnel or will be refused passage onto a flight. Thus, to my mind and apparently to the minds of the security people, it doesn't matter what her intent was in helping another person with their zipper. Her actions, and her admitted subsequent actions, indicated to the security personnel that she wasn't being cooperative. The security people aren't there to placate people who have a chip on their shoulder or who want to behave childishly. And I do think she acted childishly, but that's just my inference. It's about character assassination via innuendo. I don't think I've engaged in that. Now we might agree that these comments by [link\|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=Pine.LNX.4.10.10111052138180.13487-100000%40spock.peak.org&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DOden%2BGreen%2Bparty%2BMaine%2Bdisruptive%26hl%3Den\|Brent White] about her approach that level. I agree with you that more disinterested reports about Bangor would be better, but I don't think that's going to appear. Sorry for chastising you. I'm done in this thread, I hope. Cheers, Scott.
Post #17,224 by Ashton 11/7/01 6:17:30 PM Reply	Whew.. Lots of duplication in the posts, but one excerpt appears to be similar to mine: As I said before, the Oden case appears to me to be a case of individual harassment. The evidence is not quite in yet on what actually happened though. I would personally like to hear what impartial people who watched this had to say before I am ready to make a final conclusion. I heard her side of the story on the radio. It may not be the only side as is true in almost all disputes like this. Since this strongly appears to be an individual (and serious) dispute, I think there is a little time to look into this further. Mr. Cohen mentioned that several politicians were investigating this. I know the Green Party of the U.S. says it is doing the same. Let's see what they find here. Similar to mine except: I'm not convinced yet that she Was 'singled out because of her politics' - I am fairly convinced though, that she Though that was the reason (and was likely unaware of the 'web'-ordered ticket connection). Peace. A.

Welcome to IWETHEY!