Why GA is Dying

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

I'm not a working commercial pilot. I work in the industry, but not
flying. I think you've misunderstood much of what I'm saying. When the
cop stopped me for taking photos, I wasn't in a restricted area but a
public observation area. I wasn't requested to produce ID (not that I had
any with me) I was asked why I was taking pictures. I am under NO
requirement to explain myself.

No, I think I understood you perfectly. In fact, you are confirming it with
this post. What you are saying is absolutely clear. You have every right of
course to approach these issues as you see fit, but what I'm seeing is that
because you were approached by a "cop" in a public observation area instead
of a restricted area and asked why you were taking pictures, your immediate
response to this instead of answering the question was to instantly revert
to your conception of your "rights" instead of simply cooperating with the
request.
Even here, in this post, you feel the need to CAPITALIZE the word "NO" in
the sentence stating "I am under NO requirement to explain myself" which is
a clear indication to me at least,that your prime concern during this
incident and indeed even before the incident occurred, wasn't airport
security at all but the fact that you felt you were being "hassled" by this
security person because of your "understanding" concerning an imagined
difference between a public and a restricted area on an airport and how that
difference affects security issues.
Let me advise you right here and now that when it comes to a duly appointed
security officer acting in that capacity anywhere on airport property,
asking you why you are taking pictures on the airport, it doesn't matter
where you are on that airport. That security officer has every right to
approach you in a reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are
doing. At the point you are approached in this reasonable manner, it is
incumbent on you to supply a reasonable answer to that security officer.
Aside from the legalities involved, doing this, rather than doing what you
did, is not only the right response for a person concerned with airport
security, but the prudent response as well.
As I said, from what I have read of your posting here, you and I are natural
adversaries, at least from my point of view anyway :-)). I simply think your
attitude is totally out of line on this issue.
This is of course no big deal at all . Happens all the time on Usenet. Some
people are just better off avoiding each other :-))
Hey......all the very best to you.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to
approach you in a reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are
doing.

Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

Emily wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.


Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

You really should move out and learn to live on your own.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Emily wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.


Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

You really should move out and learn to live on your own.

Move out where? Out of my house? No thanks, if I pay a mortgage on
property, I'd like to enjoy living there.

Emily wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

Emily wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to approach you in a
reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.



Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.


You really should move out and learn to live on your own.


Move out where? Out of my house? No thanks, if I pay a mortgage on
property, I'd like to enjoy living there.

It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
probably are still living with your parents.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Emily wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

Emily wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

That security officer has every right to approach you in a
reasonable manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.



Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired
military officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so
your opinions about it really mean nothing.


You really should move out and learn to live on your own.


Move out where? Out of my house? No thanks, if I pay a mortgage on
property, I'd like to enjoy living there.

It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
probably are still living with your parents.

Matt
Obvious?

Hmmm....I wonder where they are? Maybe upstairs? Maybe in the garage?
Um, no, how odd, I can't find them. Maybe because they live 1000
miles away and I own this house that I live in ALONE.

Matt Whiting wrote:
It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
probably are still living with your parents.

You've now posted several personal attacks against Emily. She correctly
understood the law in one of her anecdotes and yet was attacked for
defending her rightful actions. I've posted elsewhere information that
supports her position. Your attack posts are self-referentially absurd and
I'm surprised you don't realize how this comes across.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Matt Whiting wrote:
It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
probably are still living with your parents.

You've now posted several personal attacks against Emily. She correctly
understood the law in one of her anecdotes and yet was attacked for
defending her rightful actions. I've posted elsewhere information that
supports her position. Your attack posts are self-referentially absurd and
I'm surprised you don't realize how this comes across.


First of all, "Emily" didn't in any shape or form correctly understand the
law in her self explained antics dealing with airport security. You are
completely wrong if you believe this.
Quite frankly, you "legal hair splitters" make my hair hurt! :-)
Secondly, duly appointed and authorized airport security has legal authority
to approach anyone at anytime, anywhere on the airport property.....period!
The manner of this approach is of course always subject to "hair splitting"
interpretation by people like you and Emily, but make no mistake about it ,
if you are on an airport property that is protected under law by an acting
authorized security agency, you have no "free or public zone" where your
"rights" of privacy take precedent over this authority. You may not like it,
and the security approach might not meet with your "delicate interpretation
"of your "rights", but like it or not, its perfectly legal.
As I said before, the system stinks , and there are good cops and there are
bad cops out there. But the fact remains; they are still duly authorized
cops, on their own duly authorized ground, and only people more concerned
with themselves than they are with security, start the type of idiotic
response to being approached that you and Emily are endorsing.
Dudley Henriques

Jim Logajan wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
probably are still living with your parents.


You've now posted several personal attacks against Emily. She correctly
understood the law in one of her anecdotes and yet was attacked for
defending her rightful actions. I've posted elsewhere information that
supports her position. Your attack posts are self-referentially absurd and
I'm surprised you don't realize how this comes across.

I've not posted a single personal attack. Just making some observations
that are consistent with the posts being made. I never questions her
understanding of the law. I question her ability to conduct herself as
an adult.

Matt

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
That security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
manner and ask you to explain what you are doing.

Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to explain myself.

Of couse you do; and that is exactly what you did :-)

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

Actually Emily, you being anti-authority or not is your business really, and
the fact that your parents, military or not, "agree with your anti-authority
streak" actually would have no effect on my opinion one way or the other, as
that opinion and/or any meaning that opinion might have are totally
unrelated to your parents.
Dudley Henriques