|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 1:27:15 GMT
We have one person saturating the thread with every political charicaturization, cartoon, and blog post they can find from the internet while saying they notice how the news is trying to "convince us that it is all okay." But let's look even at the history of things that this person puts up to support the allegations of violations. The first personal attack. Also false assumptions. Everything I posted has come from one source. One source for me that is. Multiple sources originally. And I did not post everything I found there. I see this as an attempt to marginalize me. Won't work. I've been on this board long enough that other posters can draw their own conclusions about me and what I do. You should have just stuck to countering information.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 27, 2010 1:30:30 GMT
We have one person saturating the thread with every political charicaturization, cartoon, and blog post they can find from the internet while saying they notice how the news is trying to "convince us that it is all okay." But let's look even at the history of things that this person puts up to support the allegations of violations. The first personal attack. Also false assumptions. Everything I posted has come from one source. One source for me that is. Multiple sources originally. And I did not post everything I found there. I see this as an attempt to marginalize me. Won't work. I've been on this board long enough that other posters can draw their own conclusions about me and what I do. You should have just stuck to countering information. Once again, there was no information to counter - just internet rumor. I think this is the fundamental problem here. Maybe I should not have said it like that, but in fact yes, you were finding whatever fit your position and posting it here. I acknowledged some of it was intended to be cute, but come on ... most of it was just internet rumor. People can decide what they want. Internet rumor is still internet rumor, and needs to be called what it is rather than countered.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 2:07:50 GMT
you were finding whatever fit your position and posting it here. Which implies an active search. I was not searching. As I have said repeatedly, these came my way. I was quite passive in the whole endeavor. I will repeat, you were operating under FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 27, 2010 2:09:33 GMT
you were finding whatever fit your position and posting it here. Which implies an active search. I was not searching. As I have said repeatedly, these came my way. I was quite passive in the whole endeavor. I will repeat, you were operating under FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. Let me go ahead and get it out of the way: I'm a jackass. Passive or active, the meat of the matter is that it was internet rumor, and was posted without question.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 2:09:33 GMT
People can decide what they want. Internet rumor is still internet rumor, and needs to be called what it is rather than countered. Personal attacks are not countering anything but serve only to marginalize the poster not the information posted.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 2:24:25 GMT
Which implies an active search. I was not searching. As I have said repeatedly, these came my way. I was quite passive in the whole endeavor. I will repeat, you were operating under FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. Let me go ahead and get it out of the way: I'm a jackass. Passive or active, the meat of the matter is that it was internet rumor, and was posted without question. OK internet rumor huh? Let's deal with that right now. www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/22/michigan-bladder-cancer-survivor-says-tsa-search-left-covered-urine/Michigan Bladder Cancer Survivor Says TSA Search Left Him Covered in UrinePublished November 22, 2010 | FoxNews.com A bladder cancer survivor from Michigan says he was left humiliated and covered in his own urine following a pat-down by TSA officers earlier this month at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Thomas Sawyer, 61, of Lansing told MyFoxDetroit he was asked to undergo a pat down on Nov. 7 after an airport body scanner detected his urostomy bag, which collects his urine through an opening in his stomach. Sawyer said once in a private room, officers ignored his attempts to explain his medical condition or his requests to pull his pants up which are two sizes too big due to his medical equipment and had fallen as result of removing his belt for the scan. Once the search began, Sawyer said he tried to warn the officer conducting it that he would break the seal on Sawyer’s urostomy bag if he continued to slide his hands down Sawyer’s chest, but again the officer ignored him and broke the seal on the bag. "My heart started beating. I didn't know what to do. I felt kind of trapped," Sawyer told MyFoxDetroit. “Here I am in this room with no windows. I've got urine and two men I don't know. I’m standing in front of them with my underwear and had to ask to pull it up. After finding no contraband, Sawyer said the officers simply told him he could go, offering no apologies or assistance. He said he was forced to walk through the airport and board his plane soaked in urine until he was finally able to clean up after takeoff. Sawyer plans to file a formal complaint with the TSA, MyFoxDetroit reported. The TSA said Monday evening that Administrator John Pistole had called Sawyer "to hear about his experience and assure him that we are reviewing the incident." "From leadership to the front line, TSA is sensitive to the needs and challenges of all passengers," the agency said in a written statement. "We have done extensive outreach to the disability community, and our officers take seriously their responsibility to be respectful and professional throughout the screening process." After finding no contraband, Sawyer said the officers simply told him he could go, offering no apologies or assistance. *** www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331346/Cancer-survivor-forced-prosthetic-breast-TSA-agents-airport.html?ito=feeds-newsxmlCancer survivor forced to show prosthetic breast to TSA agents during airport pat-downBy Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 6:39 PM on 20th November 2010 A flight attendant and cancer survivor has revealed her horror at being forced to show her prosthetic breast to a security agent during a pat-down at Charlotte Douglas International Airport. Cathy Bossi from South Charlotte has been a flight attendant for over 30 years and has worked for U.S. Airways for the past 28 years. She said she was asked to go through the full body-scanners at the airport in early August which she was reluctant to do because of fears of the radiation from the machine passing through her body. The 3-year-breast cancer survivor agreed, but was then asked by two female Charlotte TSA agents to go to a private room for further screening, and they began what Ms Bossi described as an aggressive pat down. She said they stopped when they got around to feeling her right breast - the one she had lost through her illness. Ms Bossi said: 'She put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What is this?'. And I said, 'It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll need to show me that'.' She was then apparently asked to remove the prosthetic breast from her bra and show it to the TSA agents. *** Come on, do you really want me to do a search? Just because you don't like the source, doesn't mean it is a rumor.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 2:31:47 GMT
How about a business journal with accompanying videos? www.businessinsider.com/tsa-security-horror-stories-2010-11#10 TSA Horror Stories Of Pat-Downs Gone WrongLeah Goldman | Nov. 22, 2010, 2:49 PM | Get ready. It's just days until millions of Thanksgiving travelers come face to face (hand-to-groin) with the new TSA security measures. It doesn't look fun. Especially when an 8-year-old boy has to take his shirt off or a cancer survivor gets covered in urine. Those are some of the horror stories that may, just may, force the TSA to come up with a new security procedure. On Wednesday, angry travelers are holding National Opt-Out Day, a protest to refuse the body scan and opt for a pat down, which takes more time and will cause delays. Click here to read the horror stories
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 27, 2010 4:03:30 GMT
The first two: That's better, however, you left out the last part of the story which slants your post. Here is the rest of the foxnews story:
So there is more to come. I'm glad to hear that there is an investigation, and a complaint. I'll be interested to see how this goes and what modifications are made to improve the process.
The rest of the second story:
And there are other stories below that one. In these stories, an attempt is made to complete the story and to get a response from the other person involved. That is missing in the other stories and in your posting of these stories as well.
In answer to your question: Is it right to make an assertion, then ask those you are discussing it with (possibly disagreeing with) to look it up for you? You're not the first one on the site I've asked that question of when they made similar statements about how someone could just "google it."
The last one: Did you notice they also had Meg McClain's story still in that group? After seeing the picture, I'm more sure the TSA video is of her. Should they check that video out? What do you think? Should they also have sought responses from TSA on the incidents? In those stories, they are just repeating stories and not investigating them so far as I can see, so no, I don't think that is investigative journalism.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 5:30:01 GMT
In answer to your question: Is it right to make an assertion, then ask those you are discussing it with (possibly disagreeing with) to look it up for you? I didn't do that. Don't move the goal posts. Make no mistake about it, you didn't question my posts, you questioned my character. Then tried to back yourself out of it when I called you on it. You disagree with what I have posted, fine. Attack the posts directly, post counter information, whatever. Come after me personally again and you WILL have a fight on your hands. As I said before, I'm a veteran poster.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 27, 2010 5:51:35 GMT
In answer to your question: Is it right to make an assertion, then ask those you are discussing it with (possibly disagreeing with) to look it up for you? I didn't do that. Don't move the goal posts. Make no mistake about it, you didn't question my posts, you questioned my character. Then tried to back yourself out of it when I called you on it. You disagree with what I have posted, fine. Attack the posts directly, post counter information, whatever. Come after me personally again and you WILL have a fight on your hands. As I said before, I'm a veteran poster. Okay, let's get this straight. I have been here since before you even started posting here. I am familiar with your posting from the very beginning. This is not the first thread where you have posted stories from Infowars.com. I actually didn't know about that website before you and one other poster posted about it the first time - I can't remember the other poster's monniker. (Time on this forum or any other means absolutely nothing to the discussion so far as I am concerned. I'm interested in the substance of what is being posted, though) I know about your news stories, I know about your politics, I know about your propensity for the big conspiracy theories, and I have seen your history. You definitely DO have a habit of posting one side and disregarding whatever may contradict that - do not deny that. I am harsh with that, and not just with you, either. I am harsh with the stories, and the practice of posting them just hoping some of them will stick with us. That is manipulation, and that was engaged on here, as well as calling those who didn't just believe them "sheeple" which I picked up and played on in subsequent posts. It was manipulation. As I said before, I react to that. The context of that statement is in answer to your question here: My answer is to that, and yes, you were asking me to do the search on your claims. What I answered is the same thing I have answered to other people who say "if you want to know, then just google it." or something comparable. That is the essence of what you were saying. If you don't like it, I really don't care. If you post things that I think are just internet rumor, then I'm going to call it out - that's why we have the ability to reply. If that means a fight, then bring it on. If you don't want that, then don't post that kind of stuff. If that calls your character into question, then tough ... I'm not going to change that for you, or anybody else. Fair enough?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 6:43:18 GMT
My answer is to that, and yes, you were asking me to do the search on your claims. What I answered is the same thing I have answered to other people who say "if you want to know, then just google it." or something comparable. That is the essence of what you were saying. No, it wasn't. You would have to take it out of context in order to get that conclusion. I posted a few things that had dropped out of the sky and came my way. You claimed I had search the internet to find stories supporting a predetermined bias. An assertion you made more than once even though I told you I had not searched for the articles. Hence my posting the do you really want me to do a search comment. It was a threat as in do you really want me to do a search because I will bury you with it. As in, if you really want to have a flame war with me, you will be the one burned.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 6:52:33 GMT
I'm interested in the substance of what is being posted, though) Obviously not since you didn't come after the stories, you came after me. You have even made the statement that the content was not worth refuting. So which is it? The content or me you have a problem with? I think it is me no matter how you try to spin it since your initial posts were all personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 27, 2010 16:58:02 GMT
I'm interested in the substance of what is being posted, though) Obviously not since you didn't come after the stories, you came after me. You have even made the statement that the content was not worth refuting. So which is it? The content or me you have a problem with? I think it is me no matter how you try to spin it since your initial posts were all personal attacks. The content is not worth refuting until you can produce a source that takes a little more diligent approach than the infowars sources you kept posting in multiple posts. They are internet rumors. I have a problem with that being posted as "evidence." When it has been pointed out several times that these are not reliable sources for several reasons, and comparing my own experience with the experiences posted to give us the supposed real story of what is going on in airports, then yes, I wonder what your motivation is. It appears to me that if your motivation was to get to the truth, then more diligence would be paid to getting a story that included both sides and not just comparisons to Nazis and rumors posted on sources like Infowars. (in fairness, you moved that direction in the post where you had two news sources that had done some investigavite journalism). That is my honest opinion - no spin. If you dont' like that, then I can't help it - it's not going to change my opinion. It's up to you to do with my opinion what you want. I notice in all of this that you still have not responded to the Meg McClain video when she was clearing TSA. Is that her? Is this the account she is giving in her interview? or did she go back for another screening at another point? If it is possible that she made most of her story up, then isn't it also possible that many other accounts are much the same? Maybe we should look for sources that consider this possibility before making the attacks against TSA. (In case you didn't catch it, the word "attack" is used playing off of your wording again - something I often do in posting. Catch the context to catch the meaning.) That is also my honest opinion - no spin. I don't think people are always honest. That includes the passengers and TSA.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 27, 2010 19:44:00 GMT
This has been fun watching this little food fight between you two. ;D
But I have a couple questions. What happens when some guy (or girl) with a suitcase bomb or vest walks into a terminal and blows himself and others to kingdom come at the ticket counter or some other spot this side of the checkpoints? What happens when the same thing happens at a mall, a stadium, or theater? Or at a Xmas tree lighting in Portland? How far down this security/safety road do we go?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 20:55:08 GMT
This has been fun watching this little food fight between you two. ;D But I have a couple questions. What happens when some guy (or girl) with a suitcase bomb or vest walks into a terminal and blows himself and others to kingdom come at the ticket counter or some other spot this side of the checkpoints? What happens when the same thing happens at a mall, a stadium, or theater? Or at a Xmas tree lighting in Portland? How far down this security/safety road do we go? This security does nothing to keep us safe. Even the underwear bomber, assuming you think he was real (I don't), boarded outside the US. It is strictly designed as psyops to get us to accept personal intrusion and a police state. I saw an interview with a lady talking about cameras on street corners. She was ok with it because it would keep us safer. How? Those cameras are not preventative. You see the same thing with man on the street interviews about the new airport security. They all talk about how it is necessary to keep us safe yet reality is it does nothing to impart safety. I'm reminded of a speech given by a guest speaker at our state convention one month after 9/11. He said they had removed the cork screws from first class but allowed him to bring a bottle of wine on board. Such is the satire article about taking the soldiers nail clippers but allowing his actual weapon. It has all been designed for a set reaction which we see demonstrated in slh1234's posts, compliance and resignation. You won't see balanced reporting on the issue. No man on the street interviews with people concerned about the erosion of our constitutional rights. No investigation showing pro or con how this would impact safety at all.
|
|