Why GA is Dying

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

Dudley Henriques wrote:


Secondly, duly appointed and authorized airport security has legal authority
to approach anyone at anytime, anywhere on the airport property.....period!

And always have had.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Dudley Henriques wrote:


Secondly, duly appointed and authorized airport security has legal
authority to approach anyone at anytime, anywhere on the airport
property.....period!

And always have had.

Amen!
DH

the fact remains that taking pictures at
airports has now been placed within the realm of a possible security issue

So is wearing shoes, taking notes, walking around, and sneezing. It's
all within the realm of a possible security issue. In fact posting on
Usenet is most certainly a security issue, so anybody who posts on
Usenet should accept that they may be accosted at any time for any
reason by security should they wish to be at an airport.

So tell me, what =is= it that makes taking pictures a "security issue"
while your likely response to my prior paragraph would be ridicule?

Something doesn't become a security issue simply because a security
person says so.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

Something doesn't become a security issue simply because a security person
says so.

In fact, this is the exact process used for determining what constitutes a
security issue.
:-)

Dudley Henriques

Something doesn't become a security issue simply because a security person
says so.

In fact, this is the exact process used for determining what constitutes a
security issue.
:-)

Then we are no longer a free country, and should export our freedom to
other nations, since we are no longer using them.

Seriously, to allow the police to say what it is that consititutes a
police matter is =extremely= dangerous. We might as well let the TSA
decide whether little airplanes consititue a risk around big cities, and
politely accept their dictates there too.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Something doesn't become a security issue simply because a security
person says so.

In fact, this is the exact process used for determining what constitutes
a security issue.
:-)

Then we are no longer a free country, and should export our freedom to
other nations, since we are no longer using them.

Seriously, to allow the police to say what it is that consititutes a
police matter is =extremely= dangerous. We might as well let the TSA
decide whether little airplanes consititue a risk around big cities, and
politely accept their dictates there too.

This is correct, and it's also the reason why the people deciding what
constitutes a security issue are indeed civilian and not police. Police are
simply the tool that implements these decisions.

Dudley Henriques