So ...

Post #269,574 by drewk 10/5/06 8:55:14 PM Reply	So ... It's wrong to do it, because it would be wrong for 20 million people to do it. Great, I like that logic. Because that means you don't get to excuse the screener on the grounds that it was only one guy. Hey, works both ways. === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #269,606 by bepatient 10/6/06 7:56:46 AM Reply	sigh no...I could give a rat's patootey if all 20 million did a jig. The point is statistical probablility. You have a much higher statisital probability of having a >man on man< incident of stupidity if you repeat the interaction 20 million times. The point is simple. If there were some brazen plot to crush dissent being undertaken by the TSA, I think we'd hear more about it. Pure statistics. Which is why, it is much more likely, that this is an aberration that resulted in barely a noticeble stutter in the man's step towards his airplane.. Everyone is perfectly within their rights to stand in the middle of the airport and shout "Kip Hawley is an idiot"...but since part of TSA's job is to screen for odd behavior...I would expect every once in a while...some of those people may be marked for s secondary screen. And, if you really want to stick to the rules, the TSA agent was NOT factually incorrect when stating first amendment rights don't necessarily apply within the lines. Speech >is< restricted by law in those lines and that fact has been posted on those lines for many many years. Of course, the speech in question doesn't really qualify as talking about a bomb or other restricted items...but if we're looking to be absolutely specific... Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #269,748 by Ashton 10/7/06 5:33:39 AM Reply	Finally, in last \ufffd it - - - it sorta dawns, eh? Of course, the speech in question doesn't really qualify as talking about a bomb or other restricted items...but if we're looking to be absolutely specific... Prec\ufffdsam\ufffdnte! Even a Rent-a-Cop needs training about what a Constitution is, along with the plan du jour - and with speech of Any Kind: needs the capacity for discretion / discernment (as much as you can get for $10/hr.) Thou sayest: It IS Impossible to write an absolutely specific manual. (At very Least: "'Bomb' == Bad. 'fanciful musings' / mere frustration == unLikely to = Bad".) D'Oh\ufffd Oh and: "'Bombers' are rather unlikely to act-out any frustrations, be flippant or otherwise Draw Attention to Themselves\ufffd". Ya suppose ol Kip yet groks That to fullness? (Took you a while..) No need to thank me; we were trained ~~ "Each one teach one" :-)
Post #269,752 by bepatient 10/7/06 9:53:58 AM Reply	that still has zero to do with my point...just a further obervation of the technical aspects of the interaction. The point was, if you really want to be absolutely specific, the statement was >technically< correct. So the answer to the man's rhetorical question regarding his 1st amendment rights was given accurately. "No, they don't apply in here." This doesn't translate to 1) he was right. 2) he acted appropriately 3) he's just a misunderstood authority figure. Just don't want you wetting yourself thinking I've had a change of opinion. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #269,755 by Another Scott 10/7/06 10:11:15 AM Reply	Dunno, Beep. "You can't write things like this" he said It seems to me that since he wasn't charged with anything, the [link\|http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6440005\|TSA Supervisor] was wrong and that he can, in fact, write things like that. Of course, he now has a bigger file with a couple of law enforcement agencies... Unless we want to start arguing the meaning of "correct" and "wrong" and "wrong doesn't mean illegal" and whether First Amendment rights apply to phished Social Security numbers, and so forth, I think this subject has been beaten to a pulp. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #269,771 by bepatient 10/7/06 12:52:40 PM Reply	Agree...we're rolling it to paper about now and given our law enforcement agencies ability to keep track of anything...I don't think that's much of an issue either. I doubt the form ever leaves the airport. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #269,776 by jb4 10/7/06 1:12:23 PM Reply	And what shall we roll in that paper? jb4 "When the final history is written in Iraq, [link\|http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmate/2006/tmate060926.gif\|it'll look just like a comma.]" — George W. Bush, 24 Sep 06
Post #269,779 by bepatient 10/7/06 1:15:44 PM Reply	Mary Mary, quite contrary, how doth your garden grow? Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #269,795 by boxley 10/7/06 6:10:55 PM Reply	starting salary for a tsa screener is 35k a year you think for that much you would get a little common sense thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #269,800 by bepatient 10/7/06 6:56:45 PM Reply	optimist. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #269,806 by boxley 10/7/06 7:33:06 PM Reply	oops, $23.6 forgot about the 25%cola for alaska Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!