|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 26, 2010 21:27:26 GMT
Right, all the stories are exaggerated or made up entirely.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 26, 2010 21:29:36 GMT
Journalism Interrupted: The Nation Failby Larisa Alexandrovna, November 26, 2010 *** Consider for a moment what the issue is. The government of "we the people" demanded that the "we" that it is supposed to represent give up our rights to our most sacrosanct property – our bodies – in order to have free passage across this supposed free nation. In essence, my ability to travel in the United States of America is contingent on me allowing a government agent to either see me naked or feel me up. This outrages me. This outrages everyone I know. The level of invasiveness is the galvanizing factor. So no, I don’t find it "strange" that there was a "spontaneous revolt against the TSA." I would find it strange if there was instead the sound of crickets in response to such clear and obscene acts of government overreach. *** original.antiwar.com/larisa-alexandrovna/2010/11/25/journalism-interrupted-the-nation-fail/
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 26, 2010 21:44:32 GMT
Ok posting some excerpts in one post so as not to spam the thread even though I would rather not do it this way.TSA turns off naked body scanners to avoid opt-out day protestsMike Adams NaturalNews November 25, 2010 Anticipating a nationwide grassroots surge of protests against naked body scanners and aggressive pat-downs, the TSA simply turned off its naked body scanners on Wednesday and let air travelers walk right through security checkpoints without being X-rayed or molested. All across the country, air travelers are reporting that the TSA simply deactivated the naked body scanners and let people go right through without a scan. “Backscatter scanners are off. No scan. No patdown.” reported a traveler from the Seattle airport. “Backscatter machines aren’t being used at LAX,” reported another traveler. “They’re all roped off.” www.infowars.com/tsa-turns-off-naked-body-scanners-to-avoid-opt-out-day-protests/*** Deadlier Than Scanners: TSA To Spread Flesh-Eating BacteriaPaul Joseph Watson Infowars.com November 25, 2010 Now that the TSA’s new pat down procedures include reaching inside people’s clothing and directly touching their skin and genitals, communicable diseases are set to soar, with doctors warning of a new wave of infections that will pose a greater risk to public health than any statistical probability of being a victim of terrorism. The TSA’s new pat down procedures threaten to unleash an epidemic of communicable diseases, presenting a threat more deadly than the radiation travelers will be exposed to if they pass through a naked body scanner. This will undoubtedly lead to thousands of deaths of people with weak immune systems in the long term. The controversy again highlights the fact that the body scanner and pat down procedures, through the spread of infectious diseases like flesh-eating bacteria, will kill more people than they will protect through the speculative prevention of any terror attack. www.infowars.com/deadlier-than-scanners-tsa-to-spread-flesh-eating-bacteria/ *** Menstruating woman subjected to TSA grope because panty-liner obscured her vulva on pornoscannerCory Doctorow at 11:49 PM Wednesday, Nov 24, 2010 A self-described "rule follower" went through an airport pornoscanner wearing a panty-liner (she was menstruating). Because the hygienic item obscured the screener's view of her girl thingy vulva, she was made to endure a humiliating fondling, "so invasive that I was left crying and dealing with memories that I thought had been dealt with years ago of prior sexual assaults." www.boingboing.net/2010/11/24/menstruating-woman-s.html*** The TSA and America’s Turning PointHobbes Scragged November 26, 2010 The recently-escalated battle between the American people and the TSA is far more important than it first appears. The final outcome of this argument will determine whether we still live in a nation “of the people, by the people, for the people”, or whether we have become a soft tyranny where our democratic forms of elections and representatives have been reduced to a meaningless veneer as in the old Soviet Union or Red China. The people have made their fury loudly know. The TSA’s response? Screw you! www.infowars.com/the-tsa-and-americas-turning-point/*** Are those satires as well? Let's start with Article 1: infowars: Bullshit for the infowars sheeple. They'll believe without questioning. Does anyone else even claim this is true? Secod article: Not presented as satire. More infowars fearmongering. No doubt, the infowars sheeple will follow without questioning. It's always nice to add a little "imminent death and destruction" in the mix to add urgency to those who might now otherwise move, isn't it? . Article #3: word vs. word. If I'm able to make contact with a TSO to hear from them about guidelines, would that be considered constructive input? It seems that they should at least be able to answer ... and that there is a huge lack of curiosity about what their guidelines really are. Article #4: Another infowars story? really? And look at the leadin you posted: Yes! I'm sure that's just what it means. There can't be any other possible interpretation, now can there? And let me guess, I'm a sheeple if I don't follow along with this "information" in the war for my mind? Video: I notice they didn't post a time. It's not unusual to see an airport almost abandoned in early morning or late evening. However; in that video, I can't even see whether or not it does look like a "ghost town." I can say that neither San Francisco, nor Seattle resembed a ghost town Wednesday. I think anyone who associated themselves with a boycott attempt would be despearate to show some signs of success, though. What do you think? Another angle on it provided by the associated press: examiner.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16842:airport-security-moving-smoothly-despite-opt-out-day&catid=35:ap-news&Itemid=56If things moved that smoothly, and few people opted out, and the airports weren't ghost towns, and enough of us saw it, I can see why someone would need to claim that TSA just decided not to use the TIA that day, and thus that is why we didn't see any real delays. They continue to make reference to Meg McClain. Is this her in this video? www.youtube.com/watch?v=trQp6V8dx7AAnd just in case we're wondering if they took her offscreen and cuffed her there, we have this video from another angle showing where the exited (near the end): www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXlMbsR0MMcWow! did you see all those "hot chicks" they scanned while she was protesting? I can see their point ... lol (Where her claims are made): www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfigWatch the video and then tell me if anything she said really happened? Twisting on her breasts? She was the only one singled out? hour and a half? handcuffed? Anything at all accurate? She counted 12 cops? Ripped the airline ticket in half? Is that really her? Did they make up that video from someone else? It's so different that someone would have to ask the question.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 26, 2010 21:45:40 GMT
Right, all the stories are exaggerated or made up entirely. From infowars.com, I have no doubt. So why do you try so hard to NOT include any evidence to the contrary? Why are you so disinterested in what a TSA agent may say? Do you think I'm lying to you? If so, I invited someone else to comment, but thus far, nobody is contradicting me.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 26, 2010 21:55:13 GMT
Journalism Interrupted: The Nation Failby Larisa Alexandrovna, November 26, 2010 *** Consider for a moment what the issue is. The government of "we the people" demanded that the "we" that it is supposed to represent give up our rights to our most sacrosanct property – our bodies – in order to have free passage across this supposed free nation. In essence, my ability to travel in the United States of America is contingent on me allowing a government agent to either see me naked or feel me up. This outrages me. This outrages everyone I know. The level of invasiveness is the galvanizing factor. So no, I don’t find it "strange" that there was a "spontaneous revolt against the TSA." I would find it strange if there was instead the sound of crickets in response to such clear and obscene acts of government overreach. *** original.antiwar.com/larisa-alexandrovna/2010/11/25/journalism-interrupted-the-nation-fail/ Concerning the "everybody I know" part: Ref: www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/11/23/20101123poll-most-americans-support-tsa-politico.htmlAnother report on the same ABC news poll: www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/poll-public-says-ok-to-ts_n_787523.htmlFrom a little earlier in the week, CBS found a little more than that: ref: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.htmlLet's balance that against infowars.com in this discussion, shall we? If this is true, then I can see why the boycott didn't seem to have so much effect. It seems the use of the scanners are not unpopular at all, and the pat downs, well, it looks like we are pretty evenly divided on that. But with that many people, and with what seems to be video evidence that Meg McClain made up her entire account, and knowing the human race's propensity to exaggerate or even lie if it is to the individual's advantage, I think we have to at least think that some of the stories would have to be made up, wouldn't we. Now which of those stories are made up? (Besides Meg McClain's?) That's a pretty tough question, and when we get into a politically charged situation, it's one that has to be considered very diligently. As for "All those stories," consider this: how many people have processed through the airports since this started? You google it and find how many unique, unconfirmed stories? What does that equal in percentages? You don't think there are that many people who would exaggerate or even make something up? Again, I ask: Which ones are true, and how do we know?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 26, 2010 22:50:05 GMT
So why do you try so hard to NOT include any evidence to the contrary? Why are you so disinterested in what a TSA agent may say? Do you think I'm lying to you? If so, I invited someone else to comment, but thus far, nobody is contradicting me. A lot of false assumptions in that post. I do post counter information when I come across it. I did so on the oilpocalyps thread. I'm not seeking these articles out, they just come my way. I NEVER visit info wars and I'm on public record speaking against AJ. But hey if you are comfortable making assumptions about people with little or no evidence. Go ahead. Just keep in mind that I am an avid web poster with years of posting history on multiple forums. Also I must point out that your experiences are anecdotal and are just worthy of the same weight as the anecdotal stories in the articles I have posted that you are so quick to dismiss. Why is your experience somehow "normal" while the countless other experiences are out of the norm or manufactured because they were reposted on infowars?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 26, 2010 22:58:53 GMT
So why do you try so hard to NOT include any evidence to the contrary? Why are you so disinterested in what a TSA agent may say? Do you think I'm lying to you? If so, I invited someone else to comment, but thus far, nobody is contradicting me. A lot of false assumptions in that post. I do post counter information when I come across it. I did so on the oilpocalyps thread. I'm not seeking these articles out, they just come my way. I NEVER visit info wars and I'm on public record speaking against AJ. But hey if you are comfortable making assumptions about people with little or no evidence. No evidence? How many links to articles on Infowars.com have you posted just on this thread? That's what I'm talking about. Go ahead. Just keep in mind that I am an avid web poster with years of posting history on multiple forums. Okay, you may have an advantage on me there. Also I must point out that your experiences are anecdotal and are just worthy of the same weight as the anecdotal stories in the articles I have posted that you are so quick to dismiss. Exactly right, except for one point: I am the one with the experiences I am posting (not relying on anyone I don't know), and I am the one dismissing in my accounts because the other accounts do not line up with my experience both in the airport, and with people. It is up to you to take my accounts and decide what to do with them (if anything) because to you, they are anecdotal accounts. Thus, my question: Who else has travelled? Give us your account. Why is your experience somehow "normal" while the countless other experiences are out of the norm or manufactured because they were reposted on infowars? As I posted above, the "countless" is far from countless in context. They are remarkably few. And if we have evidence of someone like Meg McClain being loose with the truth, then we need to look at those things. (Is that her in the video?). While looking, we need to keep in mind what people's tendencies are, and also keep in mind that the TSOs are people as well.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 26, 2010 23:14:53 GMT
And if we have evidence of someone like Meg McClain being loose with the truth, then we need to look at those things. (Is that her in the video?). While looking, we need to keep in mind what people's tendencies are, and also keep in mind that the TSOs are people as well. I would agree. However, you are spending a lot of time trying to kill the messenger with false assumptions etc instead of posting counter information you say is there. This calls into question your motivations. Why are you coming after me rather than countering the information in the posts? I welcome counter information and I'm on public record, including this board, as saying so more than once.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 26, 2010 23:43:57 GMT
And if we have evidence of someone like Meg McClain being loose with the truth, then we need to look at those things. (Is that her in the video?). While looking, we need to keep in mind what people's tendencies are, and also keep in mind that the TSOs are people as well. I would agree. However, you are spending a lot of time trying to kill the messenger with false assumptions etc instead of posting counter information you say is there. This calls into question your motivations. Why are you coming after me rather than countering the information in the posts? I welcome counter information and I'm on public record, including this board, as saying so more than once. Any time on this site I think something is being posted that is just not being thought through, or is someone going too far, I contend with it. That usually puts me at odds with people like MAV or Graywolf. I'm not killing anybody. Outside of this board, if I have to contend with something, then I like for it to be balanced. I've noticed that I normally start that with agressively questioning what I don't think will be supported on my side because the last thing I want is to get into the argument, then discover my argument isn't well founded. That personality comes into this board as well. It is probably perceived by you a little differently than it is by me. The "information" you have posted is from unverifiable sources. They are internet rumors. As such, there is nothing to counter other than with things like the video of Meg McClain (if that is her. Is it?). I can give my experience with people that leads me to my conclusions. However; my first reaction after recognizing a rumor as such is to realize that I can draw no basis from that for any action against anybody. If you want a real reaction from me, then bring me real information, and not a rumor. The TSA people are people, too. I have met some who are sourpusses, and some who are very pleasant. I have yet to have an unprofessional experience with one. I'm sure it happens just because statistically it seems certain. However; how many of these are there really compared with the total number? I "come after you" as you said because you are the one posting the unconfirmable anecdotes, and the one that seems to want to whip us up emotionally. Taking the unconfirmable anecdotes at face value without questioning or considering human nature leads to the mob mentality I was talking about earlier, and that is what I think is happening in this issue I think those who oppose it are not a majority, so since they do not have the political numbers to make a change, they are resorting to the unquestioned retelling of these stories to whip up the mob mentality in a manner of speaking. In this sense, I do not see it being anything like the TEA party of this year. I think rumors and "mob mentality" work because people have a tendency to believe the bad, but not the good. IOW, if you throw out there "look how this person was abused," our tendency first is to react to that before we stop and question "is this even true?" In a nutshell, when people start throwing out words like "Nazi" or kabuki (a word I had used by my brother ), or whatever their current word is, my first reaction is to put up my guard because most likely that person is using that to try to stir some emotional reaction in me and get a reaction before reasoning it out. In other words, they are trying to manipulate. I don't like that. I react to it, but probably not the way the person intended for me to. I would invite you to go watch what happens at the airport and see for yourself. I bet you could even find TSOs there and ask them about what their guidance and regulations are for the screenings.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 0:59:24 GMT
Any time on this site I think something is being posted that is just not being thought through, or is someone going too far, I contend with it. Let me stop right there. That is NOT what you were doing. First, what's it to you whether I thought it through or not? Who cares. Second, you came after me, stopping just shy being insulting making all kinds of unfounded ascertains. If you really had problems with what was posted you would have countered the posts. You didn't other than saying you haven't experienced any of this. So post some countering stuff rather than coming after me.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 1:05:30 GMT
I "come after you" as you said because you are the one posting the unconfirmable anecdotes, and the one that seems to want to whip us up emotionally. So what? Stupid reason for coming after someone who has been nothing but friendly to you. See I make it a habit NOT to do that. I have had all kinds of things posted to me and about me and had people trying to get into flame wars with me. In threads on global warming I post science. People call me all kinds of things and I continue to post science. I have actually developed a reputation for keeping things civil no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 27, 2010 1:14:43 GMT
I "come after you" as you said because you are the one posting the unconfirmable anecdotes, and the one that seems to want to whip us up emotionally. So what? Stupid reason for coming after someone who has been nothing but friendly to you. See I make it a habit NOT to do that. I have had all kinds of things posted to me and about me and had people trying to get into flame wars with me. In threads on global warming I post science. People call me all kinds of things and I continue to post science. I have actually developed a reputation for keeping things civil no matter what. "Coming after you" was playing on your words. I don't think I was coming after you, but I was pointing out that what you were posting was not science, not news, nothing whatsoever of substance. It is internet rumor trying to stir emotions, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 27, 2010 1:17:53 GMT
Any time on this site I think something is being posted that is just not being thought through, or is someone going too far, I contend with it. Let me stop right there. That is NOT what you were doing. First, what's it to you whether I thought it through or not? Who cares. Second, you came after me, stopping just shy being insulting making all kinds of unfounded ascertains. If you really had problems with what was posted you would have countered the posts. You didn't other than saying you haven't experienced any of this. So post some countering stuff rather than coming after me. There is nothing to counter. You have posted nothing but internet rumor - nothing whatsoever. Should I see someone posting articles from infowars or articles like the one you now say was a parody and not say anything? It's fodder. It has nothing to do with friendliness, either. Either you have something to found it on, or you don't. There is a difference in what you and I are offering: I tell you what I saw, you tell me what you read that somebody you don't know saw. You get to decide which of us you want to believe, but no way what you were posting should have been left unchallenged.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 1:20:13 GMT
So what? Stupid reason for coming after someone who has been nothing but friendly to you. See I make it a habit NOT to do that. I have had all kinds of things posted to me and about me and had people trying to get into flame wars with me. In threads on global warming I post science. People call me all kinds of things and I continue to post science. I have actually developed a reputation for keeping things civil no matter what. "Coming after you" was playing on your words. I don't think I was coming after you, but I was pointing out that what you were posting was not science, not news, nothing whatsoever of substance. It is internet rumor trying to stir emotions, plain and simple. [/i][/ul] That is coming after me personally. Period. Want me to go get more? It was also a false assumption. I was not excluding anything.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 27, 2010 1:24:40 GMT
"Coming after you" was playing on your words. I don't think I was coming after you, but I was pointing out that what you were posting was not science, not news, nothing whatsoever of substance. It is internet rumor trying to stir emotions, plain and simple. [/i][/ul] That is coming after me personally. Period. Want me to go get more? It was also a false assumption. I was not excluding anything.[/quote] Okay, so let me phrase it better: Why not check to see if the references you post are supportable? Why post only one side, and only items that are at best word vs. word?
|
|