Flight Sim enquiry raises terror alert
By Andrew Orlowski in Las Vegas
Posted: 08/01/2004 at 22:39 GMT
A mother's enquiry about buying Microsoft Flight Simulator for her
ten-year-old son prompted a night-time visit to her home from a state
trooper.

Julie Olearcek, a USAF Reserve pilot made the enquiry at a Staples
store in Massachusetts, home to an earlier bout of hysteria, during
the Salem witch trials.

So alarmed was the Staples clerk at the prospect of the ten year old
learning to fly, that he informed the police, the Greenfield Recorder
reports. The authorities moved into action, leaving nothing to chance.
A few days later, Olearcek was alarmed to discover a state trooper
flashing a torch into to her home through a sliding glass door at 8:30
pm on a rainy night.

Olearcek is a regular Staples customer and schools her son at home.
The Staples manager simply explained that staff were obeying advice.
Shortly before Christmas, the FBI issued a terror alert to beware of
drivers with maps, or reference books.

At one time it was rare to find US citizens, in the safest and most
prosperous country in the world, jumping at their own shadows. Now we
only note how high.

"Jeb" > wrote in message
om...
> Flight Sim enquiry raises terror alert
> By Andrew Orlowski in Las Vegas
> Posted: 08/01/2004 at 22:39 GMT
> A mother's enquiry about buying Microsoft Flight Simulator for her
> ten-year-old son prompted a night-time visit to her home from a state
> trooper.
>
> Julie Olearcek, a USAF Reserve pilot made the enquiry at a Staples
> store in Massachusetts, home to an earlier bout of hysteria, during
> the Salem witch trials.
>
> So alarmed was the Staples clerk at the prospect of the ten year old
> learning to fly, that he informed the police, the Greenfield Recorder
> reports. The authorities moved into action, leaving nothing to chance.
> A few days later, Olearcek was alarmed to discover a state trooper
> flashing a torch into to her home through a sliding glass door at 8:30
> pm on a rainy night.
>
> Olearcek is a regular Staples customer and schools her son at home.
> The Staples manager simply explained that staff were obeying advice.
> Shortly before Christmas, the FBI issued a terror alert to beware of
> drivers with maps, or reference books.
>
> At one time it was rare to find US citizens, in the safest and most
> prosperous country in the world, jumping at their own shadows. Now we
> only note how high.

It could also be noted that incidents like this are isolated rather than the
general norm. This specific incident was overplayed because the person
involved on the receiving end was a pilot. People are not jumping at their
own shadows in America. If anything, there's a huge problem with people
generally beginning to take on a "relaxed" attitude about the country being
hit again.
These incidents are going to happen, and they're going to happen again, so
you better get used to it. When you have retail store managers with good
intentions but absolutely no training in security matters at all calling
meetings and "briefing" young impressionable sales clerks on the importance
of reporting "anything suspicious" because they have received a flyer from
"headquarters" or seen something on the nightly news, this kind of thing is
going to happen.
The bottom line is that we're caught between what we should be doing to be
secure, and what we're actually doing to be secure. It's a mess out there.
There's some security, but not nearly enough has been done. We're caught
between our freedom and how much of that freedom we're willing to give up
for security. It's a HUGE problem that's filled with pot holes. We have
every faction with an agenda to grind flailing away at every attempt to make
the nation more secure. In fact, I think it's safe to say, from what I've
seen so far at least, that we're as afraid and suspicious of our own
government as we are of the terrorist situation, perhaps with reason,
perhaps not...who the hell knows?
The bottom line is that along with these security warnings going up and
down, and the agendas floating around trying to tear the country apart with
conspiracy theories, you're going to have little old ladies hassled at the
airport for their nail clippers; old men of 96 taken aside and made to strip
down to their shorts; clerks at Staples showing the boss that they are
"contributing" to the overall "concerns" of their employers; and young
middle eastern looking men passed by security because no one wants to look
like their profiling.
Hell, all you have to do is take a good look at the posts that might follow
mine here to see how absolutely divided we all are on this issue :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Allong a similar note:

By: Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association

Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.
We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:

"Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only
donate to the arts, social action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and
education."

So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in
general do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really wrong
at this particular TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of
dollars, not even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial
remembrance
As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET US corporate headquarters and their
response was the same. That's their national policy.

Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the United
States Marine Corps to collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their stores.
And during the recent Iraq deployment, they would not allow families of
employees who were called up for active duty to continue their insurance
coverage while they were on military service. Then as I dig further, TARGET
is a French-owned corporation.

Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET cannot support American Veterans, then
why should I and my family support their stores by spending our hard earned
American dollars and to have their profits sent to France.

Without the American Vets, where would France be today?
Speaking German and eating weinershnitzel perhaps.

The rumors you propagate below are false, as you could have discovered with
a quick web search. http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
provides documentation.

--Gary

"karl" > wrote in message
...
> Allong a similar note:
>
> By: Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association
>
> Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the
> Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.
> We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
>
> "Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only
> donate to the arts, social action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and
> education."
>
> So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in
> general do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really
wrong
> at this particular TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of
> dollars, not even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial
> remembrance
> As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET US corporate headquarters and their
> response was the same. That's their national policy.
>
> Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the United
> States Marine Corps to collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their stores.
> And during the recent Iraq deployment, they would not allow families of
> employees who were called up for active duty to continue their insurance
> coverage while they were on military service. Then as I dig further,
TARGET
> is a French-owned corporation.
>
> Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET cannot support American Veterans, then
> why should I and my family support their stores by spending our hard
earned
> American dollars and to have their profits sent to France.
>
> Without the American Vets, where would France be today?
> Speaking German and eating weinershnitzel perhaps.
>
>

"karl" > wrote in message
...
> Allong a similar note:
>
> By: Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association
>
> Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the
> Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.
> We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
>
> "Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only
> donate to the arts, social action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and
> education."
>
> So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in
> general do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really
wrong
> at this particular TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of
> dollars, not even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial
> remembrance
> As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET US corporate headquarters and their
> response was the same. That's their national policy.
>
> Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the United
> States Marine Corps to collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their stores.
> And during the recent Iraq deployment, they would not allow families of
> employees who were called up for active duty to continue their insurance
> coverage while they were on military service. Then as I dig further,
TARGET
> is a French-owned corporation.
>
> Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET cannot support American Veterans, then
> why should I and my family support their stores by spending our hard
earned
> American dollars and to have their profits sent to France.
>
> Without the American Vets, where would France be today?
> Speaking German and eating weinershnitzel perhaps.

I must be missing the correlation to a security issue here but I'll tell you
this much.
I heard the same thing about Target Stores recently and I'm in the process
of investigating it further as I write this. If this is true, it's going to
be an absolute nightmare for Target, and rightly so. I can only imagine the
absolute stupidity that would spawn such a corporate policy. It flies in the
face of anything even remotely resembling common sense more or less American
loyalty. Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of total morons who feel the need
to take their agendas out on the Vietnam vets. If they have a problem with
the Vietnam war, they should take that problem to the US Government and
leave the vets alone! The vets were NOT responsible for starting the damn
war and ANYONE or ANY COMPANY who takes it out on these people is a complete
idiot!
I would suggest that if Target can be verified as having the company policy
you have stated here, that every American should consider this seriously
when thinking of making a purchase from them. I know they will have seen MY
last dollar anyway!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Sorry, Karl you were misled, that is one of those wonderful internet urban
legends
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp


karl > wrote in message
...
> Allong a similar note:
>
> By: Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association
>
> Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the
> Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.
> We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
>
> "Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only
> donate to the arts, social action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and
> education."
>
> So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in
> general do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really
wrong
> at this particular TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of
> dollars, not even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial
> remembrance
> As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET US corporate headquarters and their
> response was the same. That's their national policy.
>
> Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the United
> States Marine Corps to collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their stores.
> And during the recent Iraq deployment, they would not allow families of
> employees who were called up for active duty to continue their insurance
> coverage while they were on military service. Then as I dig further,
TARGET
> is a French-owned corporation.
>
> Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET cannot support American Veterans, then
> why should I and my family support their stores by spending our hard
earned
> American dollars and to have their profits sent to France.
>
> Without the American Vets, where would France be today?
> Speaking German and eating weinershnitzel perhaps.
>
>

Thank you. Just read the site. Problem solved!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:66%Lb.17297$5V2.29019@attbi_s53...
> The rumors you propagate below are false, as you could have discovered
with
> a quick web search. http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
> provides documentation.
>
> --Gary
>
> "karl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Allong a similar note:
> >
> > By: Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association
> >
> > Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the
> > Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.
> > We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
> >
> > "Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only
> > donate to the arts, social action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and
> > education."
> >
> > So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in
> > general do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really
> wrong
> > at this particular TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of
> > dollars, not even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial
> > remembrance
> > As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET US corporate headquarters and
their
> > response was the same. That's their national policy.
> >
> > Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the United
> > States Marine Corps to collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their
stores.
> > And during the recent Iraq deployment, they would not allow families of
> > employees who were called up for active duty to continue their insurance
> > coverage while they were on military service. Then as I dig further,
> TARGET
> > is a French-owned corporation.
> >
> > Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET cannot support American Veterans,
then
> > why should I and my family support their stores by spending our hard
> earned
> > American dollars and to have their profits sent to France.
> >
> > Without the American Vets, where would France be today?
> > Speaking German and eating weinershnitzel perhaps.
> >
> >
>
>

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
.net...
> Thank you. Just read the site. Problem solved!

You're welcome Dudley!

It was immediately obvious to me when I read the post that it describes a
right-winger's fantasy of what liberals are like, and that it was almost
certainly a hoax. It took about 30 seconds of searching to confirm my
suspicion.

--Gary

>
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:66%Lb.17297$5V2.29019@attbi_s53...
> > The rumors you propagate below are false, as you could have discovered
> with
> > a quick web search. http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
> > provides documentation.
> >
> > --Gary
> >
> > "karl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Allong a similar note:
> > >
> > > By: Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association
> > >
> > > Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the
> > > Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.
> > > We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
> > >
> > > "Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only
> > > donate to the arts, social action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and
> > > education."
> > >
> > > So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans
in
> > > general do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really
> > wrong
> > > at this particular TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of
> > > dollars, not even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial
> > > remembrance
> > > As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET US corporate headquarters and
> their
> > > response was the same. That's their national policy.
> > >
> > > Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the
United
> > > States Marine Corps to collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their
> stores.
> > > And during the recent Iraq deployment, they would not allow families
of
> > > employees who were called up for active duty to continue their
insurance
> > > coverage while they were on military service. Then as I dig further,
> > TARGET
> > > is a French-owned corporation.
> > >
> > > Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET cannot support American Veterans,
> then
> > > why should I and my family support their stores by spending our hard
> > earned
> > > American dollars and to have their profits sent to France.
> > >
> > > Without the American Vets, where would France be today?
> > > Speaking German and eating weinershnitzel perhaps.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:Sw%Lb.17545$sv6.52969@attbi_s52...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > Thank you. Just read the site. Problem solved!
>
> You're welcome Dudley!
>
> It was immediately obvious to me when I read the post that it describes a
> right-winger's fantasy of what liberals are like, and that it was almost
> certainly a hoax. It took about 30 seconds of searching to confirm my
> suspicion.
>
> --Gary

Actually, you might have spent 45 seconds instead of 30. :-)))
It doesn't look like a hoax at all. I'm reading it as an actual event that
got out of control because the vet and the store employee weren't on the
same page when the vet made the initial request. It looks like the store
employee didn't have the sense to realize the volatility of a situation like
this and allowed the vet to leave feeling his cause was slighted. Then the
vet in turn went over board with his telling of the tale, steering it way
past what it actually was by generalizing it to make it appear worse than it
was in reality. All in all, I'd grade this as a bad performance by BOTH
sides. Hardly a hoax though!
Glad it's getting straightened out for Target's sake. They could have
avoided this whole thing by handling this vet's request better at the point
of sale. Obviously someone didn't know their job. I'm glad whoever that
person was never worked for me. It's a no brainer really. When things like
this walk into a large company, someone who knows what the hell they're
doing should immediately be assigned to handle it....correctly........with
respect.......and so that there is NO misunderstanding that could lead to a
veteran leaving with the impression this one did. Obviously, if the request
was handled properly at the store, and the vet started a totally false
rumor, this would be a different scenario entirely, but from what Target has
said, this doesn't seen to be the case; not to me anyway.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:Sw%Lb.17545$sv6.52969@attbi_s52...
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> > > Thank you. Just read the site. Problem solved!
> >
> > You're welcome Dudley!
> >
> > It was immediately obvious to me when I read the post that it describes
a
> > right-winger's fantasy of what liberals are like, and that it was almost
> > certainly a hoax. It took about 30 seconds of searching to confirm my
> > suspicion.
> >
> > --Gary
>
> Actually, you might have spent 45 seconds instead of 30. :-)))
> It doesn't look like a hoax at all. I'm reading it as an actual event that
> got out of control because the vet and the store employee weren't on the
> same page when the vet made the initial request.

Yes, it seems to have begun as an honest misunderstanding. But if you read
for 60 seconds instead of 45 :-)), you'll see that many inflammatory details
were added to the vet's letter as it circulated around the 'net. So that
added portion, at least, is a hoax.

Regards,
Gary

> It looks like the store
> employee didn't have the sense to realize the volatility of a situation
like
> this and allowed the vet to leave feeling his cause was slighted. Then the
> vet in turn went over board with his telling of the tale, steering it way
> past what it actually was by generalizing it to make it appear worse than
it
> was in reality. All in all, I'd grade this as a bad performance by BOTH
> sides. Hardly a hoax though!
> Glad it's getting straightened out for Target's sake. They could have
> avoided this whole thing by handling this vet's request better at the
point
> of sale. Obviously someone didn't know their job. I'm glad whoever that
> person was never worked for me. It's a no brainer really. When things like
> this walk into a large company, someone who knows what the hell they're
> doing should immediately be assigned to handle it....correctly........with
> respect.......and so that there is NO misunderstanding that could lead to
a
> veteran leaving with the impression this one did. Obviously, if the
request
> was handled properly at the store, and the vet started a totally false
> rumor, this would be a different scenario entirely, but from what Target
has
> said, this doesn't seen to be the case; not to me anyway.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:32:17 GMT "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
> "Jeb" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Flight Sim enquiry raises terror alert
> > By Andrew Orlowski in Las Vegas
> > Posted: 08/01/2004 at 22:39 GMT
> > A mother's enquiry about buying Microsoft Flight Simulator for her
> > ten-year-old son prompted a night-time visit to her home from a state
> > trooper.
> >
> > Julie Olearcek, a USAF Reserve pilot made the enquiry at a Staples
> > store in Massachusetts, home to an earlier bout of hysteria, during
> > the Salem witch trials.
> >
> > So alarmed was the Staples clerk at the prospect of the ten year old
> > learning to fly, that he informed the police, the Greenfield Recorder
> > reports. The authorities moved into action, leaving nothing to chance.
> > A few days later, Olearcek was alarmed to discover a state trooper
> > flashing a torch into to her home through a sliding glass door at 8:30
> > pm on a rainy night.
> >
> > Olearcek is a regular Staples customer and schools her son at home.
> > The Staples manager simply explained that staff were obeying advice.
> > Shortly before Christmas, the FBI issued a terror alert to beware of
> > drivers with maps, or reference books.
> >
> > At one time it was rare to find US citizens, in the safest and most
> > prosperous country in the world, jumping at their own shadows. Now we
> > only note how high.
>
> It could also be noted that incidents like this are isolated rather than the
> general norm. This specific incident was overplayed because the person

It could be noted but it isn't true. There are plenty of knee-jerks like this
going on everyday. Do you think every one makes the news?


> involved on the receiving end was a pilot. People are not jumping at their

This makes no sense. In what way was it overplayed? The person involved
was 10 years old. It was overplayed because our rights to freedom are
being trampled.


> own shadows in America. If anything, there's a huge problem with people


People are shooting at their own shadows. 10,000 gun related per year.
(or more??)

> generally beginning to take on a "relaxed" attitude about the country being
> hit again.
> These incidents are going to happen, and they're going to happen again, so
> you better get used to it. When you have retail store managers with good


It's surprising to think that anyone could buy into the drivel you seem
to have bought into. Wait until you're hauled off and detained with no
reason given.


> intentions but absolutely no training in security matters at all calling
> meetings and "briefing" young impressionable sales clerks on the importance
> of reporting "anything suspicious" because they have received a flyer from
> "headquarters" or seen something on the nightly news, this kind of thing is
> going to happen.
> The bottom line is that we're caught between what we should be doing to be
> secure, and what we're actually doing to be secure. It's a mess out there.
> There's some security, but not nearly enough has been done. We're caught
> between our freedom and how much of that freedom we're willing to give up
> for security. It's a HUGE problem that's filled with pot holes. We have


There are not enough freedoms to give up to get the safety you seem to think
we can get.


> every faction with an agenda to grind flailing away at every attempt to make
> the nation more secure. In fact, I think it's safe to say, from what I've
> seen so far at least, that we're as afraid and suspicious of our own
> government as we are of the terrorist situation, perhaps with reason,
> perhaps not...who the hell knows?


Well our own government has lied to us so many times recently you don't
know what to believe do you? They've done all kinds of horrible things to our
own people. LSD testing on unknowing, unwitting military test subjects.
Chemical spraying on "special" ops teams in Hawaii. Lying about WMDs. Just
today there's a report that Bush was planning the Iraq invasion pre-9/11.


So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you must
be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive or
a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're under
$500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at AMT if
you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and Co.


> The bottom line is that along with these security warnings going up and
> down, and the agendas floating around trying to tear the country apart with
> conspiracy theories, you're going to have little old ladies hassled at the


What conspiracy theories?


> airport for their nail clippers; old men of 96 taken aside and made to strip
> down to their shorts; clerks at Staples showing the boss that they are
> "contributing" to the overall "concerns" of their employers; and young

blah blah blah


> middle eastern looking men passed by security because no one wants to look
> like their profiling.


What? Do you have some instances of this happening? I don't believe you.


> Hell, all you have to do is take a good look at the posts that might follow
> mine here to see how absolutely divided we all are on this issue :-)))

Divided is not the issue it's about getting facts as opposed to concocting
incorrect conclusions.

R. Hubbell




> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

"R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:32:17 GMT "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jeb" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Flight Sim enquiry raises terror alert
> > > By Andrew Orlowski in Las Vegas
> > > Posted: 08/01/2004 at 22:39 GMT
> > > A mother's enquiry about buying Microsoft Flight Simulator for her
> > > ten-year-old son prompted a night-time visit to her home from a state
> > > trooper.
> > >
> > > Julie Olearcek, a USAF Reserve pilot made the enquiry at a Staples
> > > store in Massachusetts, home to an earlier bout of hysteria, during
> > > the Salem witch trials.
> > >
> > > So alarmed was the Staples clerk at the prospect of the ten year old
> > > learning to fly, that he informed the police, the Greenfield Recorder
> > > reports. The authorities moved into action, leaving nothing to chance.
> > > A few days later, Olearcek was alarmed to discover a state trooper
> > > flashing a torch into to her home through a sliding glass door at 8:30
> > > pm on a rainy night.
> > >
> > > Olearcek is a regular Staples customer and schools her son at home.
> > > The Staples manager simply explained that staff were obeying advice.
> > > Shortly before Christmas, the FBI issued a terror alert to beware of
> > > drivers with maps, or reference books.
> > >
> > > At one time it was rare to find US citizens, in the safest and most
> > > prosperous country in the world, jumping at their own shadows. Now we
> > > only note how high.
> >
> > It could also be noted that incidents like this are isolated rather than
the
> > general norm. This specific incident was overplayed because the person
>
> It could be noted but it isn't true. There are plenty of knee-jerks like
this
> going on everyday. Do you think every one makes the news?
>
>
> > involved on the receiving end was a pilot. People are not jumping at
their
>
> This makes no sense. In what way was it overplayed? The person involved
> was 10 years old. It was overplayed because our rights to freedom are
> being trampled.
>
>
> > own shadows in America. If anything, there's a huge problem with people
>
>
> People are shooting at their own shadows. 10,000 gun related per year.
> (or more??)
>
> > generally beginning to take on a "relaxed" attitude about the country
being
> > hit again.
> > These incidents are going to happen, and they're going to happen again,
so
> > you better get used to it. When you have retail store managers with good
>
>
> It's surprising to think that anyone could buy into the drivel you seem
> to have bought into. Wait until you're hauled off and detained with no
> reason given.
>
>
> > intentions but absolutely no training in security matters at all calling
> > meetings and "briefing" young impressionable sales clerks on the
importance
> > of reporting "anything suspicious" because they have received a flyer
from
> > "headquarters" or seen something on the nightly news, this kind of thing
is
> > going to happen.
> > The bottom line is that we're caught between what we should be doing to
be
> > secure, and what we're actually doing to be secure. It's a mess out
there.
> > There's some security, but not nearly enough has been done. We're caught
> > between our freedom and how much of that freedom we're willing to give
up
> > for security. It's a HUGE problem that's filled with pot holes. We have
>
>
> There are not enough freedoms to give up to get the safety you seem to
think
> we can get.
>
>
> > every faction with an agenda to grind flailing away at every attempt to
make
> > the nation more secure. In fact, I think it's safe to say, from what
I've
> > seen so far at least, that we're as afraid and suspicious of our own
> > government as we are of the terrorist situation, perhaps with reason,
> > perhaps not...who the hell knows?
>
>
> Well our own government has lied to us so many times recently you don't
> know what to believe do you? They've done all kinds of horrible things to
our
> own people. LSD testing on unknowing, unwitting military test subjects.
> Chemical spraying on "special" ops teams in Hawaii. Lying about WMDs.
Just
> today there's a report that Bush was planning the Iraq invasion pre-9/11.
>
>
> So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you must
> be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
> people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive or
> a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're under
> $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at AMT if
> you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and Co.
>
>
> > The bottom line is that along with these security warnings going up and
> > down, and the agendas floating around trying to tear the country apart
with
> > conspiracy theories, you're going to have little old ladies hassled at
the
>
>
> What conspiracy theories?
>
>
> > airport for their nail clippers; old men of 96 taken aside and made to
strip
> > down to their shorts; clerks at Staples showing the boss that they are
> > "contributing" to the overall "concerns" of their employers; and young
>
> blah blah blah
>
>
> > middle eastern looking men passed by security because no one wants to
look
> > like their profiling.
>
>
> What? Do you have some instances of this happening? I don't believe you.
>
>
> > Hell, all you have to do is take a good look at the posts that might
follow
> > mine here to see how absolutely divided we all are on this issue :-)))
>
> Divided is not the issue it's about getting facts as opposed to concocting
> incorrect conclusions.
>
> R. Hubbell

LOL!
Hell Hubbell, this post is so filled with personal agenda and conspiricy
theory that it's literally impossible to deal with it even if I wanted to,
which I don't :-)
You win, The world sucks; the government exists only to hurt us, and they're
coming to get all of us in the middle of the night, and the President is a
................ what's the use....? :-))
Take care,
DH

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:32:04 GMT "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
> "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:32:17 GMT "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Jeb" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Flight Sim enquiry raises terror alert
> > > > By Andrew Orlowski in Las Vegas
> > > > Posted: 08/01/2004 at 22:39 GMT
> > > > A mother's enquiry about buying Microsoft Flight Simulator for her
> > > > ten-year-old son prompted a night-time visit to her home from a state
> > > > trooper.
> > > >
> > > > Julie Olearcek, a USAF Reserve pilot made the enquiry at a Staples
> > > > store in Massachusetts, home to an earlier bout of hysteria, during
> > > > the Salem witch trials.
> > > >
> > > > So alarmed was the Staples clerk at the prospect of the ten year old
> > > > learning to fly, that he informed the police, the Greenfield Recorder
> > > > reports. The authorities moved into action, leaving nothing to chance.
> > > > A few days later, Olearcek was alarmed to discover a state trooper
> > > > flashing a torch into to her home through a sliding glass door at 8:30
> > > > pm on a rainy night.
> > > >
> > > > Olearcek is a regular Staples customer and schools her son at home.
> > > > The Staples manager simply explained that staff were obeying advice.
> > > > Shortly before Christmas, the FBI issued a terror alert to beware of
> > > > drivers with maps, or reference books.
> > > >
> > > > At one time it was rare to find US citizens, in the safest and most
> > > > prosperous country in the world, jumping at their own shadows. Now we
> > > > only note how high.
> > >
> > > It could also be noted that incidents like this are isolated rather than
> the
> > > general norm. This specific incident was overplayed because the person
> >
> > It could be noted but it isn't true. There are plenty of knee-jerks like
> this
> > going on everyday. Do you think every one makes the news?
> >
> >
> > > involved on the receiving end was a pilot. People are not jumping at
> their
> >
> > This makes no sense. In what way was it overplayed? The person involved
> > was 10 years old. It was overplayed because our rights to freedom are
> > being trampled.
> >
> >
> > > own shadows in America. If anything, there's a huge problem with people
> >
> >
> > People are shooting at their own shadows. 10,000 gun related per year.
> > (or more??)
> >
> > > generally beginning to take on a "relaxed" attitude about the country
> being
> > > hit again.
> > > These incidents are going to happen, and they're going to happen again,
> so
> > > you better get used to it. When you have retail store managers with good
> >
> >
> > It's surprising to think that anyone could buy into the drivel you seem
> > to have bought into. Wait until you're hauled off and detained with no
> > reason given.
> >
> >
> > > intentions but absolutely no training in security matters at all calling
> > > meetings and "briefing" young impressionable sales clerks on the
> importance
> > > of reporting "anything suspicious" because they have received a flyer
> from
> > > "headquarters" or seen something on the nightly news, this kind of thing
> is
> > > going to happen.
> > > The bottom line is that we're caught between what we should be doing to
> be
> > > secure, and what we're actually doing to be secure. It's a mess out
> there.
> > > There's some security, but not nearly enough has been done. We're caught
> > > between our freedom and how much of that freedom we're willing to give
> up
> > > for security. It's a HUGE problem that's filled with pot holes. We have
> >
> >
> > There are not enough freedoms to give up to get the safety you seem to
> think
> > we can get.
> >
> >
> > > every faction with an agenda to grind flailing away at every attempt to
> make
> > > the nation more secure. In fact, I think it's safe to say, from what
> I've
> > > seen so far at least, that we're as afraid and suspicious of our own
> > > government as we are of the terrorist situation, perhaps with reason,
> > > perhaps not...who the hell knows?
> >
> >
> > Well our own government has lied to us so many times recently you don't
> > know what to believe do you? They've done all kinds of horrible things to
> our
> > own people. LSD testing on unknowing, unwitting military test subjects.
> > Chemical spraying on "special" ops teams in Hawaii. Lying about WMDs.
> Just
> > today there's a report that Bush was planning the Iraq invasion pre-9/11.
> >
> >
> > So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you must
> > be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
> > people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive or
> > a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're under
> > $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at AMT if
> > you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and Co.
> >
> >
> > > The bottom line is that along with these security warnings going up and
> > > down, and the agendas floating around trying to tear the country apart
> with
> > > conspiracy theories, you're going to have little old ladies hassled at
> the
> >
> >
> > What conspiracy theories?
> >
> >
> > > airport for their nail clippers; old men of 96 taken aside and made to
> strip
> > > down to their shorts; clerks at Staples showing the boss that they are
> > > "contributing" to the overall "concerns" of their employers; and young
> >
> > blah blah blah
> >
> >
> > > middle eastern looking men passed by security because no one wants to
> look
> > > like their profiling.
> >
> >
> > What? Do you have some instances of this happening? I don't believe you.
> >
> >
> > > Hell, all you have to do is take a good look at the posts that might
> follow
> > > mine here to see how absolutely divided we all are on this issue :-)))
> >
> > Divided is not the issue it's about getting facts as opposed to concocting
> > incorrect conclusions.
> >
> > R. Hubbell
>
> LOL!
> Hell Hubbell, this post is so filled with personal agenda and conspiricy
> theory that it's literally impossible to deal with it even if I wanted to,
> which I don't :-)

It is? Prove that point.


> You win, The world sucks; the government exists only to hurt us, and they're
> coming to get all of us in the middle of the night, and the President is a
> ............... what's the use....? :-))


Your reality has been skewed somehow. Care to say how? Or are you unsure?


> Take care,
> DH
>
>

Okay so you don't really have any counterpoint so you would rather steer the
discussion to a close. That's fine with me too. Maybe you just weren't
expecting a reply that questioned your position.

I hope you have a lot of money because Bush and Co. are good to those that
do. And the ones that don't have a lot are good for those that do have a
lot of money. Rich people love middle-class republican voters. You help
them hold on to their money.


R. Hubbell

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:yp0Mb.17916$sv6.54629@attbi_s52...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > news:Sw%Lb.17545$sv6.52969@attbi_s52...
> > > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > > .net...
> > > > Thank you. Just read the site. Problem solved!
> > >
> > > You're welcome Dudley!
> > >
> > > It was immediately obvious to me when I read the post that it
describes
> a
> > > right-winger's fantasy of what liberals are like, and that it was
almost
> > > certainly a hoax. It took about 30 seconds of searching to confirm my
> > > suspicion.
> > >
> > > --Gary
> >
> > Actually, you might have spent 45 seconds instead of 30. :-)))
> > It doesn't look like a hoax at all. I'm reading it as an actual event
that
> > got out of control because the vet and the store employee weren't on the
> > same page when the vet made the initial request.
>
> Yes, it seems to have begun as an honest misunderstanding. But if you
read
> for 60 seconds instead of 45 :-)), you'll see that many inflammatory
details
> were added to the vet's letter as it circulated around the 'net. So that
> added portion, at least, is a hoax.
>
> Regards,
> Gary

You could say that I guess Gary, but it seems inconclusive if we're
discussing the issue in an analysis context. Saying it's a hoax as that
applies to the entire issue only covers what the vet did AFTER the incident
at the store. Any in depth analysis would have to include the events that
occurred at the store that precluded the vet's response. I think we're both
dealing in semantics a bit here :-)) It's a matter of interpretation I
guess. I'm reading from what Target has said that they honestly believe that
their employee mangled the situation; in fact; causing the misunderstanding.
This doesn't excuse the vet expanding the issue for his own purpose, but I'm
reading what the vet actually said as his interpretation of Target's
corporate policy based on what he understood from the way he was handled by
Target. This would alter my thinking when considering what he said as
interpretation or a hoax. I'll admit, it's a fine line, but I think you have
to factor in his action as unrelated to what happened in the store before
you can assign a hoax title to what he did.
So I'm reading this as separate interpretations; the store's; the vets';
yours; and mine.
Talk about nobody being on the same page!!!! :-))))))))
Dudley

"R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:32:04 GMT "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:32:17 GMT "Dudley Henriques"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Jeb" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > Flight Sim enquiry raises terror alert
> > > > > By Andrew Orlowski in Las Vegas
> > > > > Posted: 08/01/2004 at 22:39 GMT
> > > > > A mother's enquiry about buying Microsoft Flight Simulator for her
> > > > > ten-year-old son prompted a night-time visit to her home from a
state
> > > > > trooper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Julie Olearcek, a USAF Reserve pilot made the enquiry at a Staples
> > > > > store in Massachusetts, home to an earlier bout of hysteria,
during
> > > > > the Salem witch trials.
> > > > >
> > > > > So alarmed was the Staples clerk at the prospect of the ten year
old
> > > > > learning to fly, that he informed the police, the Greenfield
Recorder
> > > > > reports. The authorities moved into action, leaving nothing to
chance.
> > > > > A few days later, Olearcek was alarmed to discover a state trooper
> > > > > flashing a torch into to her home through a sliding glass door at
8:30
> > > > > pm on a rainy night.
> > > > >
> > > > > Olearcek is a regular Staples customer and schools her son at
home.
> > > > > The Staples manager simply explained that staff were obeying
advice.
> > > > > Shortly before Christmas, the FBI issued a terror alert to beware
of
> > > > > drivers with maps, or reference books.
> > > > >
> > > > > At one time it was rare to find US citizens, in the safest and
most
> > > > > prosperous country in the world, jumping at their own shadows. Now
we
> > > > > only note how high.
> > > >
> > > > It could also be noted that incidents like this are isolated rather
than
> > the
> > > > general norm. This specific incident was overplayed because the
person
> > >
> > > It could be noted but it isn't true. There are plenty of knee-jerks
like
> > this
> > > going on everyday. Do you think every one makes the news?
> > >
> > >
> > > > involved on the receiving end was a pilot. People are not jumping at
> > their
> > >
> > > This makes no sense. In what way was it overplayed? The person
involved
> > > was 10 years old. It was overplayed because our rights to freedom are
> > > being trampled.
> > >
> > >
> > > > own shadows in America. If anything, there's a huge problem with
people
> > >
> > >
> > > People are shooting at their own shadows. 10,000 gun related per
year.
> > > (or more??)
> > >
> > > > generally beginning to take on a "relaxed" attitude about the
country
> > being
> > > > hit again.
> > > > These incidents are going to happen, and they're going to happen
again,
> > so
> > > > you better get used to it. When you have retail store managers with
good
> > >
> > >
> > > It's surprising to think that anyone could buy into the drivel you
seem
> > > to have bought into. Wait until you're hauled off and detained with
no
> > > reason given.
> > >
> > >
> > > > intentions but absolutely no training in security matters at all
calling
> > > > meetings and "briefing" young impressionable sales clerks on the
> > importance
> > > > of reporting "anything suspicious" because they have received a
flyer
> > from
> > > > "headquarters" or seen something on the nightly news, this kind of
thing
> > is
> > > > going to happen.
> > > > The bottom line is that we're caught between what we should be doing
to
> > be
> > > > secure, and what we're actually doing to be secure. It's a mess out
> > there.
> > > > There's some security, but not nearly enough has been done. We're
caught
> > > > between our freedom and how much of that freedom we're willing to
give
> > up
> > > > for security. It's a HUGE problem that's filled with pot holes. We
have
> > >
> > >
> > > There are not enough freedoms to give up to get the safety you seem to
> > think
> > > we can get.
> > >
> > >
> > > > every faction with an agenda to grind flailing away at every attempt
to
> > make
> > > > the nation more secure. In fact, I think it's safe to say, from what
> > I've
> > > > seen so far at least, that we're as afraid and suspicious of our own
> > > > government as we are of the terrorist situation, perhaps with
reason,
> > > > perhaps not...who the hell knows?
> > >
> > >
> > > Well our own government has lied to us so many times recently you
don't
> > > know what to believe do you? They've done all kinds of horrible
things to
> > our
> > > own people. LSD testing on unknowing, unwitting military test
subjects.
> > > Chemical spraying on "special" ops teams in Hawaii. Lying about WMDs.
> > Just
> > > today there's a report that Bush was planning the Iraq invasion
pre-9/11.
> > >
> > >
> > > So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you
must
> > > be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
> > > people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive
or
> > > a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're
under
> > > $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at
AMT if
> > > you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and
Co.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The bottom line is that along with these security warnings going up
and
> > > > down, and the agendas floating around trying to tear the country
apart
> > with
> > > > conspiracy theories, you're going to have little old ladies hassled
at
> > the
> > >
> > >
> > > What conspiracy theories?
> > >
> > >
> > > > airport for their nail clippers; old men of 96 taken aside and made
to
> > strip
> > > > down to their shorts; clerks at Staples showing the boss that they
are
> > > > "contributing" to the overall "concerns" of their employers; and
young
> > >
> > > blah blah blah
> > >
> > >
> > > > middle eastern looking men passed by security because no one wants
to
> > look
> > > > like their profiling.
> > >
> > >
> > > What? Do you have some instances of this happening? I don't believe
you.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hell, all you have to do is take a good look at the posts that might
> > follow
> > > > mine here to see how absolutely divided we all are on this issue
:-)))
> > >
> > > Divided is not the issue it's about getting facts as opposed to
concocting
> > > incorrect conclusions.
> > >
> > > R. Hubbell
> >
> > LOL!
> > Hell Hubbell, this post is so filled with personal agenda and conspiricy
> > theory that it's literally impossible to deal with it even if I wanted
to,
> > which I don't :-)
>
> It is? Prove that point.
>
>
> > You win, The world sucks; the government exists only to hurt us, and
they're
> > coming to get all of us in the middle of the night, and the President is
a
> > ............... what's the use....? :-))
>
>
> Your reality has been skewed somehow. Care to say how? Or are you unsure?
>
>
> > Take care,
> > DH
> >
> >
>
> Okay so you don't really have any counterpoint so you would rather steer
the
> discussion to a close. That's fine with me too. Maybe you just weren't
> expecting a reply that questioned your position.
>
> I hope you have a lot of money because Bush and Co. are good to those that
> do. And the ones that don't have a lot are good for those that do have a
> lot of money. Rich people love middle-class republican voters. You help
> them hold on to their money.
>
>
> R. Hubbell

As I said, you are right about everything; I have no issue; the world is the
way you see it; Bush is bad; yes I'm rich: and I just remembered why I don't
like to post here and usually don't.
See ya!
DH

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Talk about nobody being on the same page!!!! :-))))))))

Well, I think we're close enough on this one. :)

Regards,
Gary

> Dudley
>
>

"Eric Mitchell" > wrote in message
k.net...
| Sorry, Karl you were misled, that is one of those wonderful internet urban
| legends
| http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
|

Sorry Eric, but even Snopes does not say that this is an urban legend, but a
misunderstanding. At bottom, Forrey's concerns were understandable
considering how the clerk handled the situation and the rather uninformative
letter that Target sent out to try to clear things up. Note that Target does
not explicitly deny Forrey's accusations. They only say that all their
contributions are made at corporate levels and that those contributions must
meet corporate giving guidelines -- which the Vets only meet if they fall
under the terms of "education, arts or family violence prevention." I will
bet darned few Veterans' organizations meet those guidelines, but that
plenty of homosexual groups claim to meet them.

I agree with Dudley that this is an isolated case and should be treated as
such. I have a great deal of faith in this country and I think that
eventually a lot of these imbalances will get evened out.

However, I do think it is worthwhile paying attention to incidents like
this. First of all, we do not want through our silence to allow others to
believe that this is acceptable or normal behavior. America may be basically
self correcting, but it will not be self correcting if we just stand by and
let things like this happen. Ridicule, scorn, protest, or whatever other
activities that you can do to register that this incident is wrong, we don't
want any more incidents like this, and that we don't want to go any further
down this road are entirely appropriate.

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:hf1Mb.18243$5V2.30636@attbi_s53...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Talk about nobody being on the same page!!!! :-))))))))
>
> Well, I think we're close enough on this one. :)
>
> Regards,
> Gary

All the best to you and yours in the coming year.
Dudley

Now that's truly terrifying...

mike regish

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> These incidents are going to happen, and they're going to happen again, so
> you better get used to it.

> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:hf1Mb.18243$5V2.30636@attbi_s53...
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > Talk about nobody being on the same page!!!! :-))))))))
> >
> > Well, I think we're close enough on this one. :)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gary
>
> All the best to you and yours in the coming year.
> Dudley

Thanks Dudley, you too!

--Gary

in article , Jeb at
wrote on 1/10/04 10:35 AM:


> So alarmed was the Staples clerk at the prospect of the ten year old
> learning to fly, that he informed the police, the Greenfield Recorder
> reports.

Well, I think it's a safe bet that I'd be picketing that store about 5
minutes after the cops visited. And if I thought I could get away with it,
I'd beat the **** out of that snoopy clerk. I hate people like that.

> Olearcek is a regular Staples customer and schools her son at home.
> The Staples manager simply explained that staff were obeying advice.
> Shortly before Christmas, the FBI issued a terror alert to beware of
> drivers with maps, or reference books.

Yeah, God knows, there are few things more suspicious than a driver with a
map.

> At one time it was rare to find US citizens, in the safest and most
> prosperous country in the world, jumping at their own shadows. Now we
> only note how high.

Just remember to hide your "Information Please" almanac.

9-11 has changed the way we will live in the United States for the
foreseeable future. I think It remains to be seen how it all will sort out
as the security issues are dealt with. It's a veritable certainty that there
will be more incidents like the stupid one at Staples, and more incidents in
general that will cause great concern about the rights issue.
The security issue is a huge paradox that many are afraid to face openly and
many are facing incorrectly in my opinion anyway.
The plain simple truth of it is that we have people out there who want to
kill us, and we're a free society. Our borders are wide open and we're faced
with some very real issues here; the least of which is that it's a simple
truth that in a totally free society, total security is
impossible....period! Somewhere along the line we're going to have to make
some hard choices. If we want security, we're going to have to sacrifice
some rights, it's THAT simple. We either do it, or they're going to
eventually nail us again, and even if we DO do it, there's a good chance
they'll get us again anyway. Also, if we do it, our own government can nail
us. As they say, "it ain't a pretty picture".
Right now we're all involved in this huge American "discussion" about our
rights and security. Some think we can have security without giving up some
rights. I don't think that's possible. I could be wrong. I hope so, because
if I'm right, we can look forward to more loss of rights in the name of
security. Just take a look at what's happening in general aviation. Hell, if
it keeps up at the present rate, there won't be any more general aviation.
Every time some idiot in a 150 flies into restricted airspace, we get closer
to having more government intervention. Then we have the profiling
issues........the political issues.........the.............
What a wonderful state of affairs . We want our security. We want our
rights. Can we have both? I wonder!!!! How many rights are we willing to
give up for security? It's indeed a perplexing problem. Which is it to be;
do we trust the government or not?
The answer for Americans my friend, "is blowin in the wind".....and the
terrorists know this as sure as God made little green apples.
Whatever we do, we better get our collective butts in gear and get this
settled fast....and I mean FAST!!!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:ZI1Mb.17675$Rc4.72892@attbi_s54...
> Now that's truly terrifying...
>
> mike regish
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > These incidents are going to happen, and they're going to happen again,
so
> > you better get used to it.
>
> > Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> > For personal email, please replace
> > the z's with e's.
> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> >
>
>

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:53:00 GMT "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
> "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:32:04 GMT "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:32:17 GMT "Dudley Henriques"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jeb" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > Flight Sim enquiry raises terror alert
> > > > > > By Andrew Orlowski in Las Vegas
> > > > > > Posted: 08/01/2004 at 22:39 GMT
> > > > > > A mother's enquiry about buying Microsoft Flight Simulator for her
> > > > > > ten-year-old son prompted a night-time visit to her home from a
> state
> > > > > > trooper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Julie Olearcek, a USAF Reserve pilot made the enquiry at a Staples
> > > > > > store in Massachusetts, home to an earlier bout of hysteria,
> during
> > > > > > the Salem witch trials.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So alarmed was the Staples clerk at the prospect of the ten year
> old
> > > > > > learning to fly, that he informed the police, the Greenfield
> Recorder
> > > > > > reports. The authorities moved into action, leaving nothing to
> chance.
> > > > > > A few days later, Olearcek was alarmed to discover a state trooper
> > > > > > flashing a torch into to her home through a sliding glass door at
> 8:30
> > > > > > pm on a rainy night.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Olearcek is a regular Staples customer and schools her son at
> home.
> > > > > > The Staples manager simply explained that staff were obeying
> advice.
> > > > > > Shortly before Christmas, the FBI issued a terror alert to beware
> of
> > > > > > drivers with maps, or reference books.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At one time it was rare to find US citizens, in the safest and
> most
> > > > > > prosperous country in the world, jumping at their own shadows. Now
> we
> > > > > > only note how high.
> > > > >
> > > > > It could also be noted that incidents like this are isolated rather
> than
> > > the
> > > > > general norm. This specific incident was overplayed because the
> person
> > > >
> > > > It could be noted but it isn't true. There are plenty of knee-jerks
> like
> > > this
> > > > going on everyday. Do you think every one makes the news?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > involved on the receiving end was a pilot. People are not jumping at
> > > their
> > > >
> > > > This makes no sense. In what way was it overplayed? The person
> involved
> > > > was 10 years old. It was overplayed because our rights to freedom are
> > > > being trampled.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > own shadows in America. If anything, there's a huge problem with
> people
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > People are shooting at their own shadows. 10,000 gun related per
> year.
> > > > (or more??)
> > > >
> > > > > generally beginning to take on a "relaxed" attitude about the
> country
> > > being
> > > > > hit again.
> > > > > These incidents are going to happen, and they're going to happen
> again,
> > > so
> > > > > you better get used to it. When you have retail store managers with
> good
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's surprising to think that anyone could buy into the drivel you
> seem
> > > > to have bought into. Wait until you're hauled off and detained with
> no
> > > > reason given.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > intentions but absolutely no training in security matters at all
> calling
> > > > > meetings and "briefing" young impressionable sales clerks on the
> > > importance
> > > > > of reporting "anything suspicious" because they have received a
> flyer
> > > from
> > > > > "headquarters" or seen something on the nightly news, this kind of
> thing
> > > is
> > > > > going to happen.
> > > > > The bottom line is that we're caught between what we should be doing
> to
> > > be
> > > > > secure, and what we're actually doing to be secure. It's a mess out
> > > there.
> > > > > There's some security, but not nearly enough has been done. We're
> caught
> > > > > between our freedom and how much of that freedom we're willing to
> give
> > > up
> > > > > for security. It's a HUGE problem that's filled with pot holes. We
> have
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are not enough freedoms to give up to get the safety you seem to
> > > think
> > > > we can get.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > every faction with an agenda to grind flailing away at every attempt
> to
> > > make
> > > > > the nation more secure. In fact, I think it's safe to say, from what
> > > I've
> > > > > seen so far at least, that we're as afraid and suspicious of our own
> > > > > government as we are of the terrorist situation, perhaps with
> reason,
> > > > > perhaps not...who the hell knows?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well our own government has lied to us so many times recently you
> don't
> > > > know what to believe do you? They've done all kinds of horrible
> things to
> > > our
> > > > own people. LSD testing on unknowing, unwitting military test
> subjects.
> > > > Chemical spraying on "special" ops teams in Hawaii. Lying about WMDs.
> > > Just
> > > > today there's a report that Bush was planning the Iraq invasion
> pre-9/11.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you
> must
> > > > be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
> > > > people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive
> or
> > > > a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're
> under
> > > > $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at
> AMT if
> > > > you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and
> Co.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The bottom line is that along with these security warnings going up
> and
> > > > > down, and the agendas floating around trying to tear the country
> apart
> > > with
> > > > > conspiracy theories, you're going to have little old ladies hassled
> at
> > > the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What conspiracy theories?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > airport for their nail clippers; old men of 96 taken aside and made
> to
> > > strip
> > > > > down to their shorts; clerks at Staples showing the boss that they
> are
> > > > > "contributing" to the overall "concerns" of their employers; and
> young
> > > >
> > > > blah blah blah
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > middle eastern looking men passed by security because no one wants
> to
> > > look
> > > > > like their profiling.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What? Do you have some instances of this happening? I don't believe
> you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hell, all you have to do is take a good look at the posts that might
> > > follow
> > > > > mine here to see how absolutely divided we all are on this issue
> :-)))
> > > >
> > > > Divided is not the issue it's about getting facts as opposed to
> concocting
> > > > incorrect conclusions.
> > > >
> > > > R. Hubbell
> > >
> > > LOL!
> > > Hell Hubbell, this post is so filled with personal agenda and conspiricy
> > > theory that it's literally impossible to deal with it even if I wanted
> to,
> > > which I don't :-)
> >
> > It is? Prove that point.
> >
> >
> > > You win, The world sucks; the government exists only to hurt us, and
> they're
> > > coming to get all of us in the middle of the night, and the President is
> a
> > > ............... what's the use....? :-))
> >
> >
> > Your reality has been skewed somehow. Care to say how? Or are you unsure?
> >
> >
> > > Take care,
> > > DH
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Okay so you don't really have any counterpoint so you would rather steer
> the
> > discussion to a close. That's fine with me too. Maybe you just weren't
> > expecting a reply that questioned your position.
> >
> > I hope you have a lot of money because Bush and Co. are good to those that
> > do. And the ones that don't have a lot are good for those that do have a
> > lot of money. Rich people love middle-class republican voters. You help
> > them hold on to their money.
> >
> >
> > R. Hubbell
>
> As I said, you are right about everything; I have no issue; the world is the
> way you see it; Bush is bad; yes I'm rich: and I just remembered why I don't
> like to post here and usually don't.

Well if you want to post gibberish and not get any response just create a
special subject, like Subject: GIBBERISH -- the real subject ;)

Maybe you don't like to post here because you can't engage in a point-counterpoint
style of discussion? Or because you're afraid of encountering a viewpoint
different from yours or both? Fair enough. :)


Hey, you can always use your killfile mechanism to sanitize your world like so
many others here do. :)


R. Hubbell

> See ya!
> DH
>
>

"R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:53:00 GMT "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
> > news:20040110164739.48d51b7d.none-

> Well if you want to post gibberish and not get any response just create a
> special subject, like Subject: GIBBERISH -- the real subject ;)
>
> Maybe you don't like to post here because you can't engage in a
point-counterpoint
> style of discussion? Or because you're afraid of encountering a
viewpoint
> different from yours or both? Fair enough. :)

Listen up...Hubbell is it? If you take your foot out of your mouth long
enough to view the other posts in this thread, you'll see that I'm engaged
with several posters on these issues; some pro; some con; but NONE that
start off with me the way you did. I just don't like discussing issues with
someone who starts out by telling me,
>"then you must be very naive or conveniently ignorant".
I don't discuss issues with people who post like this. Sorry! No sale!
You want to change your style a bit and come back at me with some reasonable
discourse and we'll talk. If not, nothing lost to either of us I'm sure. :-)
All the best to you,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:23:55 GMT "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
> "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:53:00 GMT "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
> > > news:20040110164739.48d51b7d.none-
>
> > Well if you want to post gibberish and not get any response just create a
> > special subject, like Subject: GIBBERISH -- the real subject ;)
> >
> > Maybe you don't like to post here because you can't engage in a
> point-counterpoint
> > style of discussion? Or because you're afraid of encountering a
> viewpoint
> > different from yours or both? Fair enough. :)
>
> Listen up...Hubbell is it? If you take your foot out of your mouth long

Insults are the recourse of those lacking a true argument.

> enough to view the other posts in this thread, you'll see that I'm engaged
> with several posters on these issues; some pro; some con; but NONE that
> start off with me the way you did. I just don't like discussing issues with
> someone who starts out by telling me,
> >"then you must be very naive or conveniently ignorant".
> I don't discuss issues with people who post like this. Sorry! No sale!

You certainly don't want to discuss the issues, that's seems true.


> You want to change your style a bit and come back at me with some reasonable

My style? You mean my views? Not bloody likely! :)

> discourse and we'll talk. If not, nothing lost to either of us I'm sure. :-)


You started this off with some absurd assertions and I countered and you
were somehow insulted because they oppose your provincial points of view.
It's okay with me too.
I guess I must have exposed your logical vulnerabilities. :)

You have my apologies. I thought since you were orating that you'd be
able to suffer some slings, or in this case opposing views. I guess
not. No harm, no foul.


R. Hubbell


> All the best to you,
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

"R.Hubbell" > wrote in message |
|
| So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you must
| be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
| people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive or
| a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're under
| $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at AMT if
| you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and Co.
|
|

Fantasy. Pure fantasy. The vast majority of Bush supporters make far less
than $500,000 per year. It would be interesting to know how you came up with
this idiotic theory.

Anyway, what is it that you have against the rich that you keep going on
tirades against them? Were you personally planning on staying poor all your
life? (Of course! You are a pilot, so by definition you will be poor all
your life. Must be Bush's fault.)

Please include the post you're responding to, and especially the part
you refer to otherwise I have no idea what you're talking to.


R. Hubbell

"R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
...
| Please include the post you're responding to, and especially the part
| you refer to otherwise I have no idea what you're talking to.
|

I included the relevant quote. Of course, if you have no idea what you were
talking about, I will accept that.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:29:37 -0800 "C J Campbell" > wrote:

>
> "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message |
> |
> | So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you must
> | be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
> | people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive or
> | a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're under
> | $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at AMT if
> | you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and Co.
> |
> |
>

I'll try to respond to this but you didn't offer up much in the way of a
counterpoint.

> Fantasy. Pure fantasy. The vast majority of Bush supporters make far less

What part is fantasy to you?

Define a Bush supporter? Is that one who votes for him or who donates lots
of money to his campaign? If you're a Bush voter you're getting the shaft.


> than $500,000 per year. It would be interesting to know how you came up with
> this idiotic theory.

You're awfully quick to throw insults, must have touched a nerve. :)
But I note that you don't point out what was it that was idiotic.
Why not offer exact responses instead of mud slinging?

(BTW you do realize we're talking ultra-rich)

The vast majority of Bush supporters (the ones donating to his campaign)
are making > $500,000/year (dispensible income not disposable as the rich
pay very little taxes) and if you're making under $500,000/yr you're very
likely paying the way for those Bush donors. Because you are likely getting
a paycheck and your deductions are all taken out. Nothing to fudge since it's
all known to the gov. But if you're making big bucks you can play all kinds
of fun games. Putting money offshore, etc. and report very little income.
It's all legal of course. And what the middle class pays for soc. sec. is
out of whack too compared to the rich. Bush and Co. are only making things
better for those rich folks. Capital gains, I think the estate taxes and
plenty of other treats. So no Bush and Co. are not making things better.
The tax code is a joke, there are schemes that even the IRS doesn't know
about. Oh what a surprise. The IRS doesn't have the manpower to deal with
it all. (congress decides what money the IRS gets BTW)

Look at AMT too, Holy cow it's bad. It's going to keep rearing it's
ugly head for the middle-class.


BTW the rich don't care about Bush or Democrats or Republicans. They
care about money, their money and how they're going to keep it while
getting more.


>
> Anyway, what is it that you have against the rich that you keep going on


Not only against the rich, also against the govt. that lets them keep
getting richer, while the rest of americans are barely treading water.
It's about inequalities of who is paying the taxes.



> tirades against them? Were you personally planning on staying poor all your
> life? (Of course! You are a pilot, so by definition you will be poor all
> your life. Must be Bush's fault.)

Yes, planning on spending the kids inheritance, but with a twist.
The kids will get to help us spend it. :)

Not entirely Bush's fault but he's not going to change anything.

The US tax code needs to be gutted. There should be a flat tax.
Yes that would put lots of accountants and lawyers out of work
but oh well. They could become TSA workers. We'll need to
watch all those subversive people asking pointed questions
about flight sim. software and other anti-american activities
too so they could find jobs with Tom Ridge.



R. Hubbell

>
>

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:10:27 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

>They only say that all their
>contributions are made at corporate levels and that those contributions must
>meet corporate giving guidelines -- which the Vets only meet if they fall
>under the terms of "education, arts or family violence prevention." I will
>bet darned few Veterans' organizations meet those guidelines, but that
>plenty of homosexual groups claim to meet them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ how easy

http://target.com/common/page.jhtml?content=target_vet_support
It only takes 4 or 5 clicks on their homepage.

#m
--
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990509

"R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:29:37 -0800 "C J Campbell"
> wrote:
|
| >
| > "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message |
| > |
| > | So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you
must
| > | be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
| > | people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive
or
| > | a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're
under
| > | $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at
AMT if
| > | you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and
Co.
| > |
| > |
| >
|
| I'll try to respond to this but you didn't offer up much in the way of a
| counterpoint.
|
| > Fantasy. Pure fantasy. The vast majority of Bush supporters make far
less
|
| What part is fantasy to you?
|
| Define a Bush supporter? Is that one who votes for him or who donates
lots
| of money to his campaign? If you're a Bush voter you're getting the
shaft.
|
|
| > than $500,000 per year. It would be interesting to know how you came up
with
| > this idiotic theory.
|
| You're awfully quick to throw insults, must have touched a nerve. :)

Well, since you are the one saying that everyone who supports Bush is either
fantastically wealthy or a dupe, maybe you should look at the insulting tone
of your own posts.

|
| The vast majority of Bush supporters (the ones donating to his campaign)
| are making > $500,000/year (dispensible income not disposable as the rich
| pay very little taxes) and if you're making under $500,000/yr you're very
| likely paying the way for those Bush donors.

You still have not offered one shred of evidence in support of this
statement.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message |
> |
> | So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you
must
> | be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
> | people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive
or
> | a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're
under
> | $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at AMT
if
> | you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and
Co.
> |
> |
>
> Fantasy. Pure fantasy. The vast majority of Bush supporters make far less
> than $500,000 per year. It would be interesting to know how you came up
with
> this idiotic theory.

Look at Clinton/Gore supporters for the most wealthy.

>
> Anyway, what is it that you have against the rich that you keep going on
> tirades against them? Were you personally planning on staying poor all
your
> life? (Of course! You are a pilot, so by definition you will be poor all
> your life. Must be Bush's fault.)

Must be!

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2ZOO1GHBTA&isbn=0865970645&itm=20

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Jeb at
> wrote on 1/10/04 10:35 AM:
>
>
> > So alarmed was the Staples clerk at the prospect of the ten year old
> > learning to fly, that he informed the police, the Greenfield Recorder
> > reports.
>
> Well, I think it's a safe bet that I'd be picketing that store about 5
> minutes after the cops visited. And if I thought I could get away with it,
> I'd beat the **** out of that snoopy clerk. I hate people like that.


As a former cop- and admittedly proud American, I'd like to put this into a
slightly different perspective.

Obviously this Staples incident is distressing IF it really happened-- I
haven't found the supporting docs yet. Assuming the story has veracity,
then what the Hell is wrong with the cops!? It understandable that the
store management and the clerk who likely have little or no training in
security, could consider such an innocuous request as some kind of security
threat. But I ask again. WHAT ABOUT THE COPS!!?

Surely this "security violation" had to go through some sort of chain of
command at the police department before an individual officer was sent to
these folks home. What was THEIR thought process, if any? I find far more
fault with the police in this matter than the Staples store. (Remember
please- NOT a cop hater speaking here.)

Additionally, going to the store to picket or "... beat the **** out of that
snoopy clerk" seems like a ridiculous response. Possibly, a letter of
concern to Staples corporate office, and maybe a similar letter to the
editor of the local newspaper might be more effective. If we are to protect
GA (and all of our other liberties), we must be vigilant but reasonable in
our responses to these incursions away from sanity. Otherwise, we'll never
be able to get enough mainstream support to realize the balance we need
between security and freedom.

Unbridled passion, while useful in certain circumstances <g> often adds more
heat than light.

I feel better. How about you?

VideoGuy

"Video Guy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message
...
If we are to protect
> GA (and all of our other liberties), we must be vigilant but reasonable in
> our responses to these incursions away from sanity. Otherwise, we'll
never
> be able to get enough mainstream support to realize the balance we need
> between security and freedom.
>
OOPS!

That should be "EXcursions away from sanity". Sometimes my brain thinks one
thing, but my fingers type another.

VideoGuy

"Video Guy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message
...
|
| As a former cop- and admittedly proud American, I'd like to put this into
a
| slightly different perspective.
|
| Obviously this Staples incident is distressing IF it really happened-- I
| haven't found the supporting docs yet.

http://www.recorder.com/Headlines/tuesday_basic.htm

At least the "Greenfield Recorder" really did print a story like that. The
story by Andrew Orlowski in Las Vegas left out some things and
sensationalized it a bit, but the general facts appear to be the same. The
story was also picked up by "The Register" and several other papers around
the country. Orlowski's version appears to be the version that is most
widely reproduced.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jeb wrote:
| >
| > A few days later, Olearcek was alarmed to discover a state trooper
| > flashing a torch into to her home through a sliding glass door at 8:30
| > pm on a rainy night.
|
| I would be marching that trooper into my house with his hands on his head
at the
| end of a 12 gauge shotgun, calling the police, and having him charged with
trespass.
|

That might be fun, except that the trooper might be inclined to defend
himself.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
>
> However, I do think it is worthwhile paying attention to incidents like
> this. First of all, we do not want through our silence to allow others to
> believe that this is acceptable or normal behavior. America may be basically
> self correcting, but it will not be self correcting if we just stand by and
> let things like this happen. Ridicule, scorn, protest, or whatever other
> activities that you can do to register that this incident is wrong, we don't
> want any more incidents like this, and that we don't want to go any further
> down this road are entirely appropriate.

That's the key. To say nothing helps perpetuate this kind of
irresponsible hysteria. I, for one, don't particularly care to live
in some sort of Stalinist-like society where panicky idiots are
encouraged to inform on their neighbors and customers. If someone
can't walk into a store and inquire about purchasing one of the best
selling pieces of entertainment software in history without having the
cops show up at the door, then something is seriously amiss.

I read a few stories about this over the weekend and was even more
dismayed that the Staples spokesperson supported this action in the
name of "safety". Cooincidentally, I was planning on going to Staples
on Sunday to pick up about $600 worth of office equipment and
furniture. I fired off an email to the VP of Public Relations
telling him what I thought of their practice and then cancelled my
order and bought from their competitor. It won't make any difference
in their bottom line, but perhaps it might make coporate think twice
about their "security" policies.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Video Guy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message >...
>
> Obviously this Staples incident is distressing IF it really happened-- I
> haven't found the supporting docs yet. Assuming the story has veracity,
> then what the Hell is wrong with the cops!? It understandable that the
> store management and the clerk who likely have little or no training in
> security, could consider such an innocuous request as some kind of security
> threat. But I ask again. WHAT ABOUT THE COPS!!?
>
> Surely this "security violation" had to go through some sort of chain of
> command at the police department before an individual officer was sent to
> these folks home. What was THEIR thought process, if any? I find far more
> fault with the police in this matter than the Staples store. (Remember
> please- NOT a cop hater speaking here.)
>
Unfortunately, I think that you'll find that the cops these days are
caught up in a "cover your ass" mentality when it comes to terrorist
related calls. You can bet that even the most ridiculous calls will
be investigated. Some of my cop acquaintences could tell you some
pretty silly tales about what they have to investigate these days.

For example, if my neighbor is building a homebuilt in his garage, I
can have the cops there within a few hours to check him out. Sadly,
this is not the America of a few years ago. We are a jittery,
frightened society now, and the terrorists are sitting in their caves
laughing their asses off.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "Video Guy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message
>...
.. We are a jittery,
> frightened society now, and the terrorists are sitting in their caves
> laughing their asses off.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

John,

I will retain the optimism that as a country, we will be able to overcome
this unfortunate global loss of common sense and return to a more realistic
understanding about what are the actual possiblities of any ONE of us being
involved in a terrorist attack. This is not to say we shouldn't be
vigilant, but we need to be at least as reasonable as we are vigilant.

You are probably correct in you assessment of the terrorists glee. Just
wish we knew WHICH cave that was!

VideoGuy

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> I agree with Dudley that this is an isolated case and should be treated as
> such. I have a great deal of faith in this country and I think that
> eventually a lot of these imbalances will get evened out.
>
> However, I do think it is worthwhile paying attention to incidents like
> this. First of all, we do not want through our silence to allow others to
> believe that this is acceptable or normal behavior. America may be
basically
> self correcting, but it will not be self correcting if we just stand by
and
> let things like this happen. Ridicule, scorn, protest, or whatever other
> activities that you can do to register that this incident is wrong, we
don't
> want any more incidents like this, and that we don't want to go any
further
> down this road are entirely appropriate.

Well said, CJ. I'm pleased to find a point on which you and I are in full
agreement. :-)

--Gary

Jeb wrote:
>
> A few days later, Olearcek was alarmed to discover a state trooper
> flashing a torch into to her home through a sliding glass door at 8:30
> pm on a rainy night.

I would be marching that trooper into my house with his hands on his head at the
end of a 12 gauge shotgun, calling the police, and having him charged with trespass.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
>
> For example, if my neighbor is building a homebuilt in his garage, I
> can have the cops there within a few hours to check him out. Sadly,
> this is not the America of a few years ago. We are a jittery,
> frightened society now, and the terrorists are sitting in their caves
> laughing their asses off.


As horrific as 9/11 was (and I was there), it was not militarily
significant. Except to the terrorist organizations who felt, and will be
feeling, the brunt of a very powerful military. Some sanity has to return
to government and how they respond to threats. In short, we need strong
leadership, and by that I don't mean some administration deciding to invade
this or that country.

They would hang you out to dry, the way things are going now.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jeb wrote:
> >
> > A few days later, Olearcek was alarmed to discover a state trooper
> > flashing a torch into to her home through a sliding glass door at 8:30
> > pm on a rainy night.
>
> I would be marching that trooper into my house with his hands on his head
at the
> end of a 12 gauge shotgun, calling the police, and having him charged with
trespass.
>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually
said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

John Galban wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, I think that you'll find that the cops these days are
> caught up in a "cover your ass" mentality when it comes to terrorist
> related calls.

Yeah, but the ones in my neighborhood walk up to the front door, ring the bell,
explain the situation (usually apologetically), and ask for information.

You know, like people are supposed to behave?

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> That might be fun, except that the trooper might be inclined to defend
> himself.

Oh, I never said it was a good idea - it's just what *I* would do (if my wife
didn't stop me). I have never been known for my even tempered nature.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

We stopped at Staples in Silverdale tonight. I asked the clerk if she had
received any kidding about the Staples "Flight Simulator" story and she said
it had been non-stop all day. I have no doubt that every clerk working for
Staples anywhere in the good old USA has heard this story a dozen times. The
kids do try to be good-natured about it.

in article , Video Guy at gkasten at brick
dot net wrote on 1/12/04 11:51 AM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , Jeb at
>> wrote on 1/10/04 10:35 AM:
>>
>>
>>> So alarmed was the Staples clerk at the prospect of the ten year old
>>> learning to fly, that he informed the police, the Greenfield Recorder
>>> reports.
>>
>> Well, I think it's a safe bet that I'd be picketing that store about 5
>> minutes after the cops visited. And if I thought I could get away with it,
>> I'd beat the **** out of that snoopy clerk. I hate people like that.
>
>
> As a former cop- and admittedly proud American, I'd like to put this into a
> slightly different perspective.
>
> Obviously this Staples incident is distressing IF it really happened-- I
> haven't found the supporting docs yet. Assuming the story has veracity,
> then what the Hell is wrong with the cops!? It understandable that the
> store management and the clerk who likely have little or no training in
> security, could consider such an innocuous request as some kind of security
> threat. But I ask again. WHAT ABOUT THE COPS!!?
>
> Surely this "security violation" had to go through some sort of chain of
> command at the police department before an individual officer was sent to
> these folks home. What was THEIR thought process, if any? I find far more
> fault with the police in this matter than the Staples store. (Remember
> please- NOT a cop hater speaking here.)

These are good points. Since when do the cops respond to every two-bit
complaint they get? Just listening to my scanner I know that they don't have
the resources for that.

> Additionally, going to the store to picket or "... beat the **** out of that
> snoopy clerk" seems like a ridiculous response.

Okay, my reaction was more emotional than rational, I'll admit. Still, the
whole notion of snooping and spying by Americans on other Americans
distresses me. Particularly since we've been through it before.

> Possibly, a letter of
> concern to Staples corporate office, and maybe a similar letter to the
> editor of the local newspaper might be more effective. If we are to protect
> GA (and all of our other liberties), we must be vigilant but reasonable in
> our responses to these incursions away from sanity. Otherwise, we'll never
> be able to get enough mainstream support to realize the balance we need
> between security and freedom.
>
> Unbridled passion, while useful in certain circumstances <g> often adds more
> heat than light.
>
> I feel better. How about you?
>
> VideoGuy

Well, sure. On the other hand, if that incident had happened to ME, and I
didn't have you around to cool me off, I'd have gone to that store and
beaten the **** out of that clerk.

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Video Guy at gkasten at
brick
> dot net wrote on 1/12/04 11:51 AM:
[snip]
>
> Okay, my reaction was more emotional than rational, I'll admit. Still, the
> whole notion of snooping and spying by Americans on other Americans
> distresses me. Particularly since we've been through it before.
>
You are not alone here. We are still in the "hysteria phase" of learning to
cope with 9/11. Nearly everyone reacts emotionally to some part of the
attacks and the aftermath. It's still confusing to a lot of us who don't
understand the reasons why these things happened. I put those who are
charged with preventing another incident in this category too. We're ALL
confused. The ONLY thing we as Americans can do is understand that WE are
not the enemy, and we must not let ourselves BECOME the enemy. So with that
I'm in complete agreement with you about being distressed by the snooping.

> > Possibly, a letter of
> > concern to Staples corporate office, and maybe a similar letter to the
> > editor of the local newspaper might be more effective. If we are to
protect
> > GA (and all of our other liberties), we must be vigilant but reasonable
in
> > our responses to these incursions away from sanity. Otherwise, we'll
never
> > be able to get enough mainstream support to realize the balance we need
> > between security and freedom.
> >

> Well, sure. On the other hand, if that incident had happened to ME, and I
> didn't have you around to cool me off, I'd have gone to that store and
> beaten the **** out of that clerk.
>
Are you sure that the clerk is the "bad guy" in any of this? Admittedly, he
instigated the situation, But it traveled through a group of people, who
ALL should have exercised much better judgment. Seems like they ALL failed.
Probably the clerk and the cop who was ultimately the one sent to the house
are the two least culpable.

Of course, that's just the way I see it. YMMV

VideoGuy

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:13:19 -0800 "C J Campbell" > wrote:

>
> "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> | On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:29:37 -0800 "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message |
> | > |
> | > | So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you
> must
> | > | be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
> | > | people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive
> or
> | > | a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're
> under
> | > | $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at
> AMT if
> | > | you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and
> Co.
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> |
> | I'll try to respond to this but you didn't offer up much in the way of a
> | counterpoint.
> |
> | > Fantasy. Pure fantasy. The vast majority of Bush supporters make far
> less
> |
> | What part is fantasy to you?
> |
> | Define a Bush supporter? Is that one who votes for him or who donates
> lots
> | of money to his campaign? If you're a Bush voter you're getting the
> shaft.
> |
> |
> | > than $500,000 per year. It would be interesting to know how you came up
> with
> | > this idiotic theory.
> |
> | You're awfully quick to throw insults, must have touched a nerve. :)
>
> Well, since you are the one saying that everyone who supports Bush is either
> fantastically wealthy or a dupe, maybe you should look at the insulting tone
> of your own posts.


Not meant to be insulting. It happens to be the case that Bush's "plan"
doesn't do much for you unless you're very rich. So if you're not very
rich and you're supporting him you're fooling yourself.

>
> |
> | The vast majority of Bush supporters (the ones donating to his campaign)
> | are making > $500,000/year (dispensible income not disposable as the rich
> | pay very little taxes) and if you're making under $500,000/yr you're very
> | likely paying the way for those Bush donors.
>
> You still have not offered one shred of evidence in support of this
> statement.
>
>

The evidence is that they are happily hiding most (close to all, but not quite
all) of their income. They pay taxes on a very small portion of the money they
make while you and I are paying lots of taxes and reporting most if not all of
our income. There's a little wiggle room for the middle class but nowhere near
the wiggle room the ultra rich have.


R. Hubbell

in article , Video Guy at gkasten at brick
dot net wrote on 1/12/04 8:28 PM:

> Are you sure that the clerk is the "bad guy" in any of this? Admittedly, he
> instigated the situation, But it traveled through a group of people, who
> ALL should have exercised much better judgment. Seems like they ALL failed.
> Probably the clerk and the cop who was ultimately the one sent to the house
> are the two least culpable.
>
> Of course, that's just the way I see it. YMMV
>
> VideoGuy

I don't disagree with you, Video Guy, but I guess I just expect more of
people, even a young (not sure how old he/she was) store clerk. I guess when
you get right down to it, we're all covering our asses. That's one of the
things I hate about the current climate in this country. When everything
starts boiling down to "CYA", nobody wins.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:09:08 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message |
> > |
> > | So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you
> must
> > | be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
> > | people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive
> or
> > | a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're
> under
> > | $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at AMT
> if
> > | you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and
> Co.
> > |
> > |
> >
> > Fantasy. Pure fantasy. The vast majority of Bush supporters make far less
> > than $500,000 per year. It would be interesting to know how you came up
> with
> > this idiotic theory.
>
> Look at Clinton/Gore supporters for the most wealthy.


Are they running again?


>
> >
> > Anyway, what is it that you have against the rich that you keep going on
> > tirades against them? Were you personally planning on staying poor all
> your
> > life? (Of course! You are a pilot, so by definition you will be poor all
> > your life. Must be Bush's fault.)
>
> Must be!
>
> http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2ZOO1GHBTA&isbn=0865970645&itm=20

I don't envy anyone if that's what the implication was.

It's not all Bush's fault but he has no intention of reversing any trends
and he's the president so that's where the blame rests right now.


By the way the ultra rich don't care if a president is republican, democrat or
(pick your favorite third party) they just want to be able to buy influence
and peddle some and keep making more money.


R. Hubbell
>
>

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> They would hang you out to dry, the way things are going now.

I'm sure they would, but one trooper would be messing in his britches.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
...
|
| >
| > |
| > | The vast majority of Bush supporters (the ones donating to his
campaign)
| > | are making > $500,000/year (dispensible income not disposable as the
rich
| > | pay very little taxes) and if you're making under $500,000/yr you're
very
| > | likely paying the way for those Bush donors.
| >
| > You still have not offered one shred of evidence in support of this
| > statement.
| >
| >
|
| The evidence is that they are happily hiding most (close to all, but not
quite
| all) of their income. They pay taxes on a very small portion of the money
they
| make while you and I are paying lots of taxes and reporting most if not
all of
| our income. There's a little wiggle room for the middle class but nowhere
near
| the wiggle room the ultra rich have.

That is not evidence. That is a supposition. What I want to know is, where
did you get these 'facts?' Do you have access to a database of Bush
supporters and their incomes? Do you have federal tax records? Did you
conduct a survey? Did you examine the tax returns of the ultra rich? How do
you know these things? How are the ultra rich hiding their income?

While we are at it, let's talk about some of your other assertions, such as
your statement that hiding income in offshore accounts is legal. How do you
know it is legal? Are you an attorney or a CPA? Why does the government
prosecute people for doing that if it is legal? I would like to know what
section of the tax code or the IRS regulations says that it is legal to hide
your income in offshore accounts. I will give you fair warning. I am a
retired CPA. All of my work was in taxation. I know more about estate
taxation than 90% of CPAs. I have seen nothing that supports your assertions
about the ultra rich.

Of course, maybe I am just part of the conspiracy between the government and
the rich, eh? In that case, heh, we know all about you. Better be careful,
eh?

Tempest / Teapot

"Jeb" > wrote in message
om...
> Flight Sim enquiry raises terror alert
> By Andrew Orlowski in Las Vegas

"R.Hubbell" > wrote:

>Not meant to be insulting. It happens to be the case that Bush's "plan"
>doesn't do much for you unless you're very rich. So if you're not very
>rich and you're supporting him you're fooling yourself.

Define "very rich".

I'm in the 15% tax bracket. I watched my income tax bill go down from
$2500 in 2001 to $700 this last year, not including the $1600 check I
got in the mail last August for that advance child credit. You might
be willing to say that a $3400 reduction in my taxes is "not much for
me", but it was a significant percentage of my yearly income, and
represented a huge double-digit percentage of my "disposable" income,
almost a doubling.

Then again, I'm not supporting him on every issue he trumpets. Am I
fooling myself?

Rob

Pertinent to this group, one of the most disturbing quotes in one of the
articles of this incident is that the clerk apparently was "alarmed by [us]
asking how to fly airplanes and said that was against the law". Bad trend if
the non-pilot public has the impression that learning to fly is illegal.

Eric

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:52:17 -0800 "C J Campbell" > wrote:

>
> "R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | The vast majority of Bush supporters (the ones donating to his
> campaign)
> | > | are making > $500,000/year (dispensible income not disposable as the
> rich
> | > | pay very little taxes) and if you're making under $500,000/yr you're
> very
> | > | likely paying the way for those Bush donors.
> | >
> | > You still have not offered one shred of evidence in support of this
> | > statement.
> | >
> | >
> |
> | The evidence is that they are happily hiding most (close to all, but not
> quite
> | all) of their income. They pay taxes on a very small portion of the money
> they
> | make while you and I are paying lots of taxes and reporting most if not
> all of
> | our income. There's a little wiggle room for the middle class but nowhere
> near
> | the wiggle room the ultra rich have.
>
> That is not evidence. That is a supposition. What I want to know is, where

Evidence or supposition is in the eye of the beholder. You infer it to be
supposition.


> did you get these 'facts?' Do you have access to a database of Bush
> supporters and their incomes? Do you have federal tax records? Did you
> conduct a survey? Did you examine the tax returns of the ultra rich? How do
> you know these things? How are the ultra rich hiding their income?


Well you obviously didn't do taxes for anyone that was ultra rich. Had you,
you wouldn't be asking these questions. Some of the schemes they use to hide
income the govt. hasn't even decided whether or not they are legal. The IRS
does not have unlimited resources and they are not able to get quite as
creative as an accountant can that is getting paid by a billionaire.



>
> While we are at it, let's talk about some of your other assertions, such as
> your statement that hiding income in offshore accounts is legal. How do you
> know it is legal? Are you an attorney or a CPA? Why does the government
> prosecute people for doing that if it is legal? I would like to know what

The govt. prosecutes people for having money in a swiss bank?? Since when?


> section of the tax code or the IRS regulations says that it is legal to hide
> your income in offshore accounts. I will give you fair warning. I am a
> retired CPA. All of my work was in taxation. I know more about estate
> taxation than 90% of CPAs. I have seen nothing that supports your assertions
> about the ultra rich.

You of all people should know then how horribly Byzantine our tax code is now.
And with that knowledge I can't imagine how you think can know what sort
of tricks can be played to hide income.

You might need to come out of retirement and brush up. :)



>
> Of course, maybe I am just part of the conspiracy between the government and

Not sure which way you're using the word conspiracy but I will guess you mean
the secretive kind and in that case you'd be wrong because in fact it's all
happening right before our eyes.

> the rich, eh? In that case, heh, we know all about you. Better be careful,
> eh?


Oh yeah I'm rich. Be careful what bait you choose to swallow it could
be a cheeseball instead of salmon roe. :)

>
>


R. Hubbell

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:56:19 GMT Rob Perkins > wrote:

> "R.Hubbell" > wrote:
>
> >Not meant to be insulting. It happens to be the case that Bush's "plan"
> >doesn't do much for you unless you're very rich. So if you're not very
> >rich and you're supporting him you're fooling yourself.
>
> Define "very rich".

what we are all not. :) How about avg. income equal to $170million/year

>
> I'm in the 15% tax bracket. I watched my income tax bill go down from
> $2500 in 2001 to $700 this last year, not including the $1600 check I
> got in the mail last August for that advance child credit. You might
> be willing to say that a $3400 reduction in my taxes is "not much for
> me", but it was a significant percentage of my yearly income, and
> represented a huge double-digit percentage of my "disposable" income,
> almost a doubling.
>
> Then again, I'm not supporting him on every issue he trumpets. Am I
> fooling myself?

Depends on whether or not you expect to see any Soc. Sec. money.
And whether or not you're okay with postponing debt to another generation.

The problem is that there exists an taxation inequality.


R. Hubbell

>
> Rob