Why GA is Dying

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
ink.net...
First, don't top post. It screws up the readability of the thread.

See, now you're trying to assert authority over me by telling me not to top
post. Hmmm. A bit of contradiction is sneaking into this discussion.

Second, your logic is some of the worst ever posted on Usenet, so it is
pretty bad.

Your opinion, which you are entitled to, is not the be all and end all of
anything.


Just because something has not happened is not an excuse to have
over-the-top, ridiculous, paranoid, government-is-always-right security
procedures.

If you see a child running towards a pool, do you stop it? It probably will
stop. 99.999999% of the time they do! It only takes you not being interested
or active enough to stop and talk to that child that perhaps causes it to
fall in and drown.

If that is what you want then move to some authoritarian
country. Quit trying to turn this country into some slave state.

You are assuming that everyone here is from the USA? You are naive. There
are more countries in the world than the one you are whinging about.

Personally, I am fed up with the current culture of stupidity that has
taken
over this country. It doesn't matter whether it is global warming,
religion, Iraq, taxes, security or stem cells. The stupidity has to stop.

Sounds like you don't like it there. Perhaps you should move?

PS. I was going to top post this, as most people don't have a drama with it,
but decided not to because I thought you might struggle.

Good luck to you.
Crash Lander

Crash,

It only has to happen once for a tragedy to occur. No-one checked the soles
of your shoes for explosives until someone tried to blow up something with
explosives in their shoes either. A perfect example of not bothering with it
until a tragedy occurs.

Nope. A perfect example for understanding that there will always be a risk.
There is no total security. The question is: How much freedom do you give up
hunting the elusive "minimal risk".

When someone takes some pics of a plane, and those
pics are found in the apartment of someone who's just blown themselves and
your best mate up with that same plane somewhere down your street, will you
be complaining why nobody did anything when they saw him taking the pictures
at your local aerodrome?

No. Why would I? There is always risk in life.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I like to top post, it is called


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Tom Conner" wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| "Crash Lander" wrote in message
| ...
| It only has to happen once for a tragedy to occur.
No-one
| checked the soles of your shoes for explosives until
someone
| tried to blow up something with explosives in their
shoes
| either. A perfect example of not bothering with it until
a
| tragedy occurs. When someone takes some pics of a plane,
and
| those pics are found in the apartment of someone who's
just
| blown themselves and your best mate up with that same
plane
| somewhere down your street, will you be complaining why
nobody
| did anything when they saw him taking the pictures at
your
| local aerodrome? I'm with Dudley on this one.
| Crash Lander
|
| --
| I'm not always right,
| But I'm never wrong!
|
| First, don't top post. It screws up the readability of
the thread. Second,
| your logic is some of the worst ever posted on Usenet, so
it is pretty bad.
| Just because something has not happened is not an excuse
to have
| over-the-top, ridiculous, paranoid,
government-is-always-right security
| procedures. If that is what you want then move to some
authoritarian
| country. Quit trying to turn this country into some slave
state.
| Personally, I am fed up with the current culture of
stupidity that has taken
| over this country. It doesn't matter whether it is global
warming,
| religion, Iraq, taxes, security or stem cells. The
stupidity has to stop.
|
|
| "Thomas Borchert" wrote in
message
| ...
| Dudley,
|
| People who are taking pictures at airports
unfortunately are now a
| security
| issue.
|
|
| One example where the taking of pictures led directly
to a security
| breach.
| Just one. Thanks.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|
|
|
|
|

Some top posting and some bottom, enjoy scrolling.


"Jim Macklin" wrote
in message news:O23xg.84029$ZW3.46325@dukeread04...
|I like to top post, it is called
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| --
| The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| some support
| http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
| See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.
|
|
| "Tom Conner" wrote in message
|
ink.net...
||
|| "Crash Lander" wrote in message
|| ...
|| It only has to happen once for a tragedy to occur.
| No-one
|| checked the soles of your shoes for explosives until
| someone
|| tried to blow up something with explosives in their
| shoes
|| either. A perfect example of not bothering with it
until
| a
|| tragedy occurs. When someone takes some pics of a
plane,
| and
|| those pics are found in the apartment of someone who's
| just
|| blown themselves and your best mate up with that same
| plane
|| somewhere down your street, will you be complaining why
| nobody
|| did anything when they saw him taking the pictures at
| your
|| local aerodrome? I'm with Dudley on this one.
|| Crash Lander
||
|| --
|| I'm not always right,
|| But I'm never wrong!
||
|| First, don't top post. It screws up the readability of
| the thread. Second,
|| your logic is some of the worst ever posted on Usenet, so
| it is pretty bad.
|| Just because something has not happened is not an excuse
| to have
|| over-the-top, ridiculous, paranoid,
| government-is-always-right security
|| procedures. If that is what you want then move to some
| authoritarian
|| country. Quit trying to turn this country into some
slave
| state.
|| Personally, I am fed up with the current culture of
| stupidity that has taken
|| over this country. It doesn't matter whether it is
global
| warming,
|| religion, Iraq, taxes, security or stem cells. The
| stupidity has to stop.
||
||
|| "Thomas Borchert" wrote
in
| message
|| ...
|| Dudley,
||
|| People who are taking pictures at airports
| unfortunately are now a
|| security
|| issue.
||
||
|| One example where the taking of pictures led directly
| to a security
|| breach.
|| Just one. Thanks.
||
|| --
|| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
||
||
||
||
||
|
|


freedom. Besides, If I open a post I want to see the latest
answer if I've been following the issue. If not, I could
start at the bottom of the tree.

The cop was just trying to make conversation. Some of them routinely find
reasons to talk with young women.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dudley,

People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a
security
issue.


One example where the taking of pictures led directly to a security
breach.
Just one. Thanks.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

You seem to be missing the point.
Even if one assumes there has never been a single incident of someone taking
a picture at an airport that has led directly to a security issue, which may
or may not be the case BTW ; the fact remains that taking pictures at
airports has now been placed within the realm of a possible security issue,
and as such, those taking these pictures at airports are well advised to
conduct themselves accordingly while on airport property.
The fact that this "disturbs" you as an individual, or that some person you
challenge on Usenet to produce examples has absolutely nothing at all to do
with the simple fact that taking pictures at airports falls directly into a
security issue category for those entrusted with these issues.
Your argument is weak and flawed. The statement that "people taking pictures
at airports are a security issue" is correct. You are attempting to disprove
that statement by inserting your opinion on the necessity for the issue,
which of course is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
It's an old dodge really; changing the premise to present a new result. You
should consider a career in politics :-))
Dudley Henriques

Tom Conner wrote:





First, don't top post. It screws up the readability of the thread.

Get over it.


Second,
your logic is some of the worst ever posted on Usenet, so it is pretty bad.
Just because something has not happened is not an excuse to have
over-the-top, ridiculous, paranoid, government-is-always-right security
procedures.

They asked for ID. That's it. If that's over the top and ridiculous
life must really suck for you. How is that any different than your
neighbors setting up a neighborhood watch program? When you notice
something or someone out of the ordinary some action is taken. Myself
and everybody else out there have a lot invested in our toys in those
hangars and on the ramp. Plus it's a safety issue. Because someone who
was supposed to be on the ramp last month saw someone who wasn't and
called the tower a drunk guy was removed from a taxiway at midnight,
stumbling around. What if he decides to pass out on the runway and gets
run over? Sorry, we saw him but we have some idiots in society here who
think you shouldn't be asked who you are and what you're doing if you
look a little(or a lot) out of the ordinary. Too police state for them.

Dudley,

You seem to be missing the point.
Even if one assumes there has never been a single incident of someone taking
a picture at an airport that has led directly to a security issue, which may
or may not be the case BTW ; the fact remains that taking pictures at
airports has now been placed within the realm of a possible security issue,
and as such, those taking these pictures at airports are well advised to
conduct themselves accordingly while on airport property.
The fact that this "disturbs" you as an individual, or that some person you
challenge on Usenet to produce examples has absolutely nothing at all to do
with the simple fact that taking pictures at airports falls directly into a
security issue category for those entrusted with these issues.
Your argument is weak and flawed.

Hoho, talk about a dodge! Look, this is simple. You stated:

People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately are now a
security
issue.

I asked you to back that statement up with fact. You can't. Nowhere in your
statement do you qualify that "some people" perceive photography at airports as
an issue. You simply state that it is. Well, it isn't. Not until you prove
otherwise.

See, that wasn't so hard, now, was it?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Newps,

How is that any different than your
neighbors setting up a neighborhood watch program? When you notice
something or someone out of the ordinary some action is taken.


Yep. The Nazis in my country called that "Blockwart". Nice concept.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.