Why GA is Dying

Jose wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the airlines had strictures
against photographing personell, procedures, etc... for quite some
time (going back well before 9/11?)

I don't know.

Jose

Yes, there have been rules against photographing procedures, personnel
and such for a while. Aircraft, no.

Ok, except at my work. We can't photograph anything there. But again,
that's not a new thing.

Stefan wrote:
Jose schrieb:

The parallels diverge before meaningful comparison. My examples are
of =membership= in an =artificially created= group conferring rights
=granted= =by= that group. Your examples are all of =natural=
properties (sex, race...).

And the natural property to have been borne in some random place I
didn't choose myself.

Compared to changing sex and race, you can very easily choose to change
citizenship.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:08:54 -0700, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

The only true security would be to check ids and run it through an FBI
computer for each client who gets on the ramp

My only problem with your post is that this presumes that any potential
terrorist or criminal (recall: security is also to protect us against
trivial things like theft of our avionics!) will be in the DB. There's no
reason to believe so, if the terrorist or criminal is at all careful.

- Andrew

Newps wrote:


Jose wrote:
(However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).


No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership
to vote so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?


Local zoning issues come to mind.

That may be particular to where you live. Here if there's a zoning
issue and I would like to have my say I simply show up at the city
council meeting.

Here too.
Hell, we have people show up at HOA meetings who aren't land owners.
Figure that one out.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:45:01 -0400, Morgans wrote:

People have been detained, all across the country, for taking
amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were
arrested and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken.
Sounds like there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.

Can you cite a case for this? I'm aware of people being arrested and
deported for various crimes (or violations; a subtle and annoying
difference) like overstaying a visa. But I've completely missed a case
where some has been deported merely for taking "suspicious amounts of
pictures".

- Andrew

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Stefan wrote:

Jose schrieb:

Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
American Citizens when on American soil.


Yes. Oh, and Blacks shouldn't be granted the same rights as whites and
women shouldn't be ganted the same rights as men and ... geeezz.

This gets my vote for dumbest post of the week. Any other votes?

any post from the long island looney bird.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article ,
Emily wrote:

Loose gun laws? I dunno. I don't own a gun because someone in my state
filed a FOIA request to get a list of all gun owners. I would not want
to own a gun knowing that anyone who wanted to could find out I own one.

how about filing a FOIA to find out who has filed a FOIA?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:40:33 +0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

If a statute exists that prohibits photography or cameras in certain
areas, and you clearly are using a camera there, a cop isn't going to ask
you what you are doing with it - he or she is going to arrest you.

This isn't necessarily true. A good cop with a ridiculous law can choose
whether to arrest or merely warn.

However, why has nobody considered the possibility that the cop (or
security officer; this wasn't completely clear) might have been a photo
buff. Just as some of us thought the FBO should have treated the
photographer as a potential client, Emily had the option of treating the
copy as a fellow shutterbug.

Or perhaps he'd his own interest in aircraft.

Yes, I think that our freedoms are under attack by potentially
well-meaning (but potentially not!) people in government today. But when
faced with an individual, it doesn't hurt to start with the assumption
that this is a person instead of an institution.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:49:43 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:


maybe even gets a new student


Ah ha. *Now* we get to a real problem with GA today: FBOs that do a
lousy job of creating clients.

This photographer wasn't a security problem; he was a sales opportunity.

He may well have been either, I have no way to know. However, to
automatically assume he was a security problem was wrong, IMO. I like
the approach that someone suggested (I can't remember who at the moment)
that would have tactfully made this determination and then addressed
appropriately whichever was the case.


Matt

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:18:23 -0500, Emily
wrote:

Hell, we have people show up at HOA meetings who aren't land owners.
Figure that one out.

Developers?

Don