Theft From Baggage-Continental

[[email protected]]

On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
Ol S&B

[Dale]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
> this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
> such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
> Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
> Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
> were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
> It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
> catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
> all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
> replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
> Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
> Ol S&B
>

I was an airport cop for a long time. Thefts from checked baggage is
quite common.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Larry Dighera]

On 23 Mar 2005 10:28:04 -0800, wrote in
. com>::

>Sorry things were stolen but they were not responsible.

Continental can tell you anything, but that doesn't make it so. Write
them a letter stating the circumstances, estimated value of your loss,
and request reimbursement. If you get a written reply denying
Continental's responsibility, use it in your civil suit.

Clues here:
http://www.blackguides.com/Travel%20Tips%20-%20How%20to%20protect%20your%20luggage%20while%20t raveling.htm
http://www.worldtravelinc.com/corp/travel_info_indus_070203.htm
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Nation2.asp?ArticleID=134060
http://www.myfreeairfare.com/bagg.html

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> I asked, "Well, if that is
> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".

And if you put it in a locked hard case, the security people will bust it open
for inspection.

George Patterson
Drink up, Socrates -- it's all-natural.

[Jay Beckman]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>>
>> I asked, "Well, if that is
>> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
>> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
>
> And if you put it in a locked hard case, the security people will bust it
> open
> for inspection.
>
> George Patterson
> Drink up, Socrates -- it's all-natural.

You stand a better chance with one of these...

http://www.topsecurityproducts.com/site/799742/product/LC-TSA30

Been using them since Christmas and I've only seen the red indicator window
once.

Yes, you could still be ripped off by a TSA employee, but I'll take my
chances with them and do what I can to protect myself against the "average"
baggage handler.

FWIW, I've had TSA types in at least six aiports thank me for being on top
of travel-related security developments.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Montblack]

("Dale" wrote)
> I was an airport cop for a long time. Thefts from checked baggage is
> quite common.


Sting operations. And another. And another. And another.

Vegas eye-in-the-sky cameras?

More Stings. Hunt them down like they carried the plague.

Beatings. Let's not rule out beatings!!


Montblack

[tom418]

Another reason to ship one's baggage to destination by UPS of Fedex, ahead
of time, when possible. This way, you can insure it for what it is actually
worth and not be limited by a decades-old monetary limit.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
> this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
> such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
> Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
> Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
> were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
> It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
> catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
> all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
> replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
> Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
> Ol S&B
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

If FedEx et al were smart they would put a drop-off location at every major
terminal in the US. You walk into the airport with your bags and give them
to the package service and they appear at your house the next day or if you
want to save some money the day after.


"tom418" > wrote in message
news:12l0e.5772$%d7.4620@lakeread03...
> Another reason to ship one's baggage to destination by UPS of Fedex, ahead
> of time, when possible. This way, you can insure it for what it is
> actually
> worth and not be limited by a decades-old monetary limit.
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
>> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
>> this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
>> such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
>> Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
>> Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
>> were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
>> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
>> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
>> It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
>> catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
>> all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
>> replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
>> Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
>> Ol S&B
>>
>
>

[Ross Richardson]

wrote:

>On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
>Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
>this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
>such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
>Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
>Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
>were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
>the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
>locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
>It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
>catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
>all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
>replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
>Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
>Ol S&B
>
>
>
Guess what, commerical airlines do not like locked luggage nowadays.
What is one to do?

Ross

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
> this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
> such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
> Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
> Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
> were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
> It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
> catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
> all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
> replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
> Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
> Ol S&B
>

But if you lock the bag, the security folks are allowed to bust it open.
So then you lose both the contents and the bag.


Matt

[OtisWinslow]

From Continental's website:

"For wholly domestic travel on or after October 22, 2004, Continental's
liability for any form of damage as a result of loss, damage or delay in
delivery of customer's personal property shall be limited to the fair market
value at the time of loss, damage or delay and will not exceed $2,800.00 per
customer, except for wheelchairs and other assistive devices."

It would appear your loss is covered. Did you file a claim?

"Prior approval must be obtained through the Baggage Resolution Center
(1-800-335-2247) in order for any expenses to be reimbursed."






> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
> this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
> such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
> Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
> Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
> were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
> It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
> catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
> all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
> replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
> Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
> Ol S&B
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> >On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
> >Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
> >this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
> >such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
> >Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
> >Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
> >were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
> >the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
> >locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
> >It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
> >catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
> >all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
> >replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
> >Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
> >Ol S&B
> >
> >
> >
> Guess what, commerical airlines do not like locked luggage nowadays.
> What is one to do?
>
> Ross

Avoid airline travel at all costs.

[Morgans]

> wrote in message

> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags.

I always have the policy of checking only cheap stuff, like clothes. All
expensive, easy to sell stuff, gets carried on.

Sorry you got ripped off. Sad part is, it almost has to be employee theft.
--
Jim in NC

[kontiki]

Morgans wrote:
> Sorry you got ripped off. Sad part is, it almost has to be employee theft.

Yup. This sick stroy is one of many reasons commercial airlines are not making money.

[Chris]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
> this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
> such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
> Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
> Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
> were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
> It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
> catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
> all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
> replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
> Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
> Ol S&B
>

probably the TSA

[Bob Moore]

Ross Richardson > wrote
> Guess what, commerical airlines do not like locked luggage nowadays.

Why would an airline possibly care whether your luggage is
locked or not?

Bob Moore
Retired Airline Pilot

[BTIZ]

was there not a report.. that almost half of the TSA baggage screeners had
criminal records?

BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
> this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
> such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
> Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
> Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
> were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
> It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
> catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
> all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
> replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
> Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
> Ol S&B
>

[BTIZ]

they do owe you cents per pound for lost luggage...

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Mar 2005 10:28:04 -0800, wrote in
> . com>::
>
>>Sorry things were stolen but they were not responsible.
>
> Continental can tell you anything, but that doesn't make it so. Write
> them a letter stating the circumstances, estimated value of your loss,
> and request reimbursement. If you get a written reply denying
> Continental's responsibility, use it in your civil suit.
>
> Clues here:
> http://www.blackguides.com/Travel%20Tips%20-%20How%20to%20protect%20your%20luggage%20while%20t raveling.htm
> http://www.worldtravelinc.com/corp/travel_info_indus_070203.htm
> http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Nation2.asp?ArticleID=134060
> http://www.myfreeairfare.com/bagg.html

[StellaStarr]

BTIZ wrote:
> was there not a report.. that almost half of the TSA baggage screeners had
> criminal records?
>
> BT
>
> <s

http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=81&content=090005198002d4e5&print=yes

According to this, even during the initial rush to beef up TSA staff,
applicants not only got an FBI fingerprint criminal-background check,
they got their education, references, and even their credit checked.

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Ross Richardson > wrote
> > Guess what, commerical airlines do not like locked luggage nowadays.
>
> Why would an airline possibly care whether your luggage is
> locked or not?
>
> Bob Moore
> Retired Airline Pilot

Because much of it now is opened and gone through before being put on the
airplane. They will break locks to get into luggage.

[Dave Stadt]

"StellaStarr" > wrote in message
news:RSp0e.100067$Ze3.43952@attbi_s51...
> BTIZ wrote:
> > was there not a report.. that almost half of the TSA baggage screeners
had
> > criminal records?
> >
> > BT
> >
> > <s
>
>
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=81&content=090005198002d4e5&print=yes
>
> According to this, even during the initial rush to beef up TSA staff,
> applicants not only got an FBI fingerprint criminal-background check,
> they got their education, references, and even their credit checked.

Real world did not support the TSA claims.

[Dave S]

If you lock your bags, they are subject to being broken into by the TSA
for security purposes.

I suggest you follow up with the TSA about this incident.. because if
your bags can be broken into in a "Secure" area and items removed, then
they can also be broken into and have items placed there (a clear breach
of security).. File a report.. follow up. You are probably not the only
one. You may not get satisfaction, but you may also be the straw that
breaks the camels back.

Dave

wrote:
> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
> this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
> such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
> Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
> Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
> were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
> It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
> catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
> all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
> replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
> Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
> Ol S&B
>

[Dale]

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:


> Because much of it now is opened and gone through before being put on the
> airplane. They will break locks to get into luggage.

I haven't done a lot of flying since 9-11 but I've had no problem
locking my bag. I use wire-ties to secure the zippers. On my trip to
Maui TSA opened the bag containing my dive gear. They left a notice in
the bag saying it had been inspected and they secured the zippers with
wire-ties. I had no complaint.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Bob Moore]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> Because much of it now is opened and gone through before being put on the
> airplane. They will break locks to get into luggage.

Don't confuse the actions required by an airline and those required
by the TSA. If I'm running an airline, I'm certainly not going to
pay someone to rummage through your luggage.

Bob Moore

[Ross Richardson]

Bob Moore wrote:

>Ross Richardson > wrote
>
>
>>Guess what, commerical airlines do not like locked luggage nowadays.
>>
>>
>
>Why would an airline possibly care whether your luggage is
>locked or not?
>
>Bob Moore
>Retired Airline Pilot
>
>
Well, I guess I did word that wrong. TSA....... I have been directly
told by TSA personnal that it is not a good idea to lock luggage.

Ross

[Jose]

>
> I suggest you follow up with the TSA about this incident.. because if your bags can be broken into in a "Secure" area and items removed, then they can also be broken into and have items placed there (a clear breach of security).

and how would you propose that he prove that the missing items were
originally in the bag?

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Jose
There is the big rub. I've decided to just write it off in income tax
as a casualty loss of professional business equipment. Will try to
avoid that happening again but not sure how.....even the carriers like
UPS and FedX have their own unique problems. I just happened to get
burned on this one and needed to vent.
Best Regards
Ol SOB

[Darrel Toepfer]

Ross Richardson wrote:

> Guess what, commerical airlines do not like locked luggage nowadays.
> What is one to do?

After the baggage is checked (international flights) everything gets zip
tied (color coded)... So far so good with the zippered bags, knock knock...

They ate the wheels off of a hard case on the last trip though...

[Ron]

As a photographer, who flys often, a hard locked bag doesn't make it any
more.

My first flight after 911 had all my hard and soft cases returned with the
locks cut off. Upon questioning the inspectors they told me that all
luggage has to be opened and that locks would be cut if installed.

Since then there are locks that you can buy the supposedly let TSA in but
keep others out.

When possible I ship equipment FedEx to my hotel for shoots.

Occasionally that is not possible and TSA will sometimes let me apply locks
after they have inspected when the inspection area is not next to the ramp.

I recently flew to DCA and was surprised that I had a tougher time getting
out with my gear than in. I had 6 cases, between 62 and 91 lbs. None were
inspected into DCA, all were opened going out.


"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
>> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags. If any are familiar with
>> this kind of bag...about 14"X16"x4", it held much of my flight gear
>> such as GPS 12XL, Sectionals, plotter, Jep CR-5, flashlights, knife,
>> Leatherman, gloves, compass, signal mirror, and misc other small items.
>> Continental told me tough luck and none of it is covered. Sorry things
>> were stolen but they were not responsible. I asked, "Well, if that is
>> the case, all my baggage when flying with Continental should be in a
>> locked hard case"? The reply was "YES".
>> It would appear any commercial flights today fit into that same
>> catagory. What really ****es me off was some of that equipment has been
>> all over the world with me for many years. I'd imagine the value or
>> replacement for the bag and contents is in excess of $500.
>> Heads up if you are going to fly commercial anyplace.
>> Ol S&B
>>
>
> probably the TSA
>

[Jim Herring]

For almost every hardside case I've seen the latches will pop open during rough
handling if not locked. If the TSA does have the keys to the usual luggage
locks out there they are not doing their job. I've got 30 year old keys that
work for the newer bags. Most of the key locks can be opened with a paper clip.

The TSA really has a problem with issue. I've been in some major foreign
airports where if they have an issue with the baggage they page you and then
you open the baggage in front of them. And, they do it before you get to the
metal detectors. Just how hard can that be in the USA? TSA is just lazy.

--
Jim

carry on

[Roger]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:48:00 -0600, Darrel Toepfer
> wrote:

>Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>> Guess what, commerical airlines do not like locked luggage nowadays.
>> What is one to do?
>
>After the baggage is checked (international flights) everything gets zip
>tied (color coded)... So far so good with the zippered bags, knock knock...

If you have the need for locks, purchase the ones the TSA uses. They
are marked and the inspectors have keys.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>They ate the wheels off of a hard case on the last trip though...

[Matt Whiting]

Roger wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:48:00 -0600, Darrel Toepfer
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Ross Richardson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Guess what, commerical airlines do not like locked luggage nowadays.
>>>What is one to do?
>>
>>After the baggage is checked (international flights) everything gets zip
>>tied (color coded)... So far so good with the zippered bags, knock knock...
>
>
> If you have the need for locks, purchase the ones the TSA uses. They
> are marked and the inspectors have keys.

And probably everyone else has a key by now as well...

Matt

[Jay Beckman]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Roger wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:48:00 -0600, Darrel Toepfer
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ross Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Guess what, commerical airlines do not like locked luggage nowadays.
>>>>What is one to do?
>>>
>>>After the baggage is checked (international flights) everything gets zip
>>>tied (color coded)... So far so good with the zippered bags, knock
>>>knock...
>>
>>
>> If you have the need for locks, purchase the ones the TSA uses. They
>> are marked and the inspectors have keys.
>
> And probably everyone else has a key by now as well...
>
> Matt

Matt,

Some brands will show you if your bag has been opened.

If it's been opened and there is no flyer from the TSA showing that your bag
was "inspected", then someone at the airline has sticky fingers and I'd go
straight to a supervisor and raise hell with him/her about it.

FWIW...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Chris]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:v1n1e.6298$Mt5.860@fed1read01...
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Roger wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:48:00 -0600, Darrel Toepfer
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ross Richardson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Guess what, commerical airlines do not like locked luggage nowadays.
>>>>>What is one to do?
>>>>
>>>>After the baggage is checked (international flights) everything gets zip
>>>>tied (color coded)... So far so good with the zippered bags, knock
>>>>knock...
>>>
>>>
>>> If you have the need for locks, purchase the ones the TSA uses. They
>>> are marked and the inspectors have keys.
>>
>> And probably everyone else has a key by now as well...
>>
>> Matt
>
> Matt,
>
> Some brands will show you if your bag has been opened.
>
> If it's been opened and there is no flyer from the TSA showing that your
> bag was "inspected", then someone at the airline has sticky fingers and
> I'd go straight to a supervisor and raise hell with him/her about it.


I use plastic cable ties to secure my baggage so if the TSA want to open the
bag they can. When I collect my bag if the tie has been removed and not
replaced by a TSA on I have a good idea someone has been in my bag.

Its a very cheap solution and is better than having a bag wrecked.

[Jose]

> When I collect my bag if the tie has been removed and not
> replaced by a TSA on I have a good idea someone has been in my bag.

.... and then what do you do?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Beede]

In article <v1n1e.6298$Mt5.860@fed1read01>,
"Jay Beckman" > wrote:

> If it's been opened and there is no flyer from the TSA showing that your bag
> was "inspected", then someone at the airline has sticky fingers and I'd go
> straight to a supervisor and raise hell with him/her about it.

So, the OP lost some stuff from his bag. Therefore . . . someone
opened it. The airline said "tough cookies, Cookie." So how
would the situation be different with the magic lock that everyone
can open? What if someone just throws the lock away? Seems to
me that the response would be the same--no one will accept
responsibility for dealing with the situation, and you're still
out your stuff, plus the cost of the Miracle TSA Lock (but
wait! There's more! Order now and get increased security!).

Mike Beede

[Chris]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> When I collect my bag if the tie has been removed and not replaced by a
>> TSA on I have a good idea someone has been in my bag.
>
> ... and then what do you do?

Back to the airline put in a report and then use it as supporting evidence
with the insurance claim.

[Grumman-581]

"Chris" wrote in message ...
> Back to the airline put in a report and then use it as supporting evidence
> with the insurance claim.

I was in Seattle a few months ago and it was a royal pain in the ass...
Every one of our bags got pulled aside for a more thorough inspection...
Seems that a lot of the cosmetics that women use contain glycerine and if
the woman has handled any of the bags, it sets off their sniffers... I had
dive and ski equipment in various bags and a handgun in a different bag...
Never have a problem with a handgun or how I pack it in Houston, but the
****in' leftists in Seattle definitely had a problem with it... I reported
it to the TSA and complained to Delta about their actions which also
contributed to the problem... Delta sent me a voucher for $100 to supposedly
make up for my inconvenience... All I had wanted was for them to correct
their employees and send me my bullets back... Kind of sucks landing at MSY
and not having any bullets for your gun when you need to go get your car
from long term parking...

[Grumman-581]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On a trip from PDX-HOU-GPT yesterday on Continental Airlines, my "Pubs
> Bag" was stolen out of one of my checked bags.

Put a gun in the bag and declare it... You are *required* to lock that sort
of bag...

[Grumman-581]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
<snip>

Hmmm... Seems that the anonymous remailer has done something different to
get past my blocked senders list... I make it a point to killfile the domain
of all the anonymous remailers, regardless of whether or not I might agree
with the poster using the anonymous remailer... I figure if they don't have
the balls to post a real name / email address, they're not worth listening
to... And before you say that I'm not using a real name, I'm sure that you
know how to go to the FAA database via www.landings.com and get my name and
physical address, so I'm not hiding in the least...

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:23:59 GMT, "Grumman-581" >
wrote in <jiO1e.110706$r55.69723@attbi_s52>::

>I'm sure that you
>know how to go to the FAA database via www.landings.com and get my name and
>physical address

And what search terms would we enter in the Landings FAA database
search engine?

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:39:52 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

>>I'm sure that you
>>know how to go to the FAA database via www.landings.com and get my name and
>>physical address
>
>And what search terms would we enter in the Landings FAA database
>search engine?


read the header of his posting for his email.
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2F2313CA> (redirects to landings.com)
this wasn't that hard. *dooh*

#m
--
It's not like I'm a terrorist or a hair dresser or anything.
http://www.ensight.org/archives/2005/03/16/issues-with-immigration/trackback/

[Grumman-581]

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
> And what search terms would we enter in the Landings FAA database
> search engine?

Uhhhh.... N581, perhaps?

[Dan Thompson]

Try searching "arrogant" and "asshole"?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:23:59 GMT, "Grumman-581" >
> wrote in <jiO1e.110706$r55.69723@attbi_s52>::
>
>>I'm sure that you
>>know how to go to the FAA database via www.landings.com and get my name
>>and
>>physical address
>
> And what search terms would we enter in the Landings FAA database
> search engine?

[Grumman-581]

"Dan Thompson"wrote in message
m...
> Try searching "arrogant" and "asshole"?

Nawh, you would get too many records returned with only those search
criteria...

One of the many problems with the anonymous remailers is that different
posters all appear to have the same name / moniker when the post hits the
newsgroups... I don't know about the person who is using it on this
newsgroup, but on other newsgroups, you find that it is used by various
trolls and individuals who would not say that sort of thing to someone's
face... It's all about personal responsibility, I guess... If you're not
willing to associate your name with your comments, why should anyone even
waste the time to listen to you? It's understandable that someone might
want to obfuscate their return email address to prevent spam, but it should
be fairly obvious how to modify it to get a valid email address from it...
Even when someone enters an entirely bogus email address (like you, Dan), it
is not completely hiding since the USENET headers could be traced to
determine who really posted the message if someone was so inclined...

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:54:53 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote in >::

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:39:52 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>>I'm sure that you
>>>know how to go to the FAA database via www.landings.com and get my name and
>>>physical address
>>
>>And what search terms would we enter in the Landings FAA database
>>search engine?
>
>
>read the header of his posting for his email.
><http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2F2313CA> (redirects to landings.com)
>this wasn't that hard. *dooh*
>
>#m

So now the FAA Airmans database contains e-mail addresses?

[Larry Dighera]

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:23:59 GMT, "Grumman-581" >
>> wrote in <jiO1e.110706$r55.69723@attbi_s52>::
>>
>>>I'm sure that you
>>>know how to go to the FAA database via www.landings.com and get my name
>>>and
>>>physical address
>>
>> And what search terms would we enter in the Landings FAA database
>> search engine?
>
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:55:28 GMT, "Dan Thompson" > wrote
in >::

>Try searching "arrogant" and "asshole"?

Why would you want to malign a fellow Texas pilot?

Have you two met off-usenet?

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:45:04 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

>>read the header of his posting for his email.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>><http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2F2313CA> (redirects to landings.com)
>>this wasn't that hard. *dooh*
>>
>>#m
>
>So now the FAA Airmans database contains e-mail addresses?

reading the WHOLE posting really seems to be a challenge.

(and his pointer to the FAA database was in context to anonymous posting)

#m
--
It's not like I'm a terrorist or a hair dresser or anything.
http://www.ensight.org/archives/2005/03/16/issues-with-immigration/trackback/

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:54:53 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote in >::

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:39:52 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>>I'm sure that you
>>>know how to go to the FAA database via www.landings.com and get my name and
>>>physical address
>>
>>And what search terms would we enter in the Landings FAA database
>>search engine?
>
>
>read the header of his posting for his email.
><http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2F2313CA> (redirects to landings.com)
>this wasn't that hard. *dooh*
>
>#m

Here's the header:

Path:

bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!wnmaster12!wns14feed!wor ldnet.att.net!attbi_s52.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Grumman-581" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
References: <52N1e.113072$Ze3.13657@attbi_s51>
>
Subject: Re: Theft From Baggage-Continental
Lines: 14
Organization: Replace ### with my tail number to reply
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
Message-ID: <jiO1e.110706$r55.69723@attbi_s52>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.205.162.233
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: attbi_s52 1111994639 12.205.162.233 (Mon, 28 Mar 2005
07:23:59 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:23:59 GMT
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:23:59 GMT
Xref: wnmaster12 rec.aviation.piloting:401590
X-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:23:59 GMT
(bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net)

I see neither Mr. Grumman's (valid) e-mail address nor tail number
there. Can you point either of them out for me?

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> I see neither Mr. Grumman's (valid) e-mail address nor tail number
> there. Can you point either of them out for me?

Tail number is 581. As in "Podunk tower, this is Grumman 581."

George Patterson
Drink up, Socrates -- it's all-natural.

[Grumman-581]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Why would you want to malign a fellow Texas pilot?
>
> Have you two met off-usenet?

Who said that "arrogant" and "asshole" were insults? <snicker>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:34:12 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in >::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> I see neither Mr. Grumman's (valid) e-mail address nor tail number
>> there. Can you point either of them out for me?
>
>Tail number is 581. As in "Podunk tower, this is Grumman 581."
>

How do you know it's not: NXX581?

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:31:36 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

>Here's the header:
>
> Path:
>
>bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!wnmaster12!wns14feed!wor ldnet.att.net!attbi_s52.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
> From: "Grumman-581" >
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> References: <52N1e.113072$Ze3.13657@attbi_s51>
> >
> Subject: Re: Theft From Baggage-Continental
> Lines: 14
> Organization: Replace ### with my tail number to reply
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (...)
>
>I see neither Mr. Grumman's (valid) e-mail address nor tail number
>there. Can you point either of them out for me?

only if you don't read Grumman-581 not as (part of) his tailnumber (N-581).


#m
--
It's not like I'm a terrorist or a hair dresser or anything.
http://www.ensight.org/archives/2005/03/16/issues-with-immigration/trackback/

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:34:12 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in >::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> I see neither Mr. Grumman's (valid) e-mail address nor tail number
>> there. Can you point either of them out for me?
>
>Tail number is 581. As in "Podunk tower, this is Grumman 581."
>

In response to e-mail from Grumman-581, I replied:


-----------------------------------------
Sir:

First, let me say that I agree with your assessment of anonymously
posted articles. Anonymity fosters irresponsibility.

My comments in-line below:


On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:22:59 -0000, you wrote
om>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> How do you know it's not: NXX581?
>
>Because XX581 would not fit on my tail with 12" letters?

How am I supposed to know that your aircraft is not large enough to
display the normal 5-character registration number? Where is that
fact stated?

>Because I didn't say, Grumman XX581?

As you know, after initial contact, ATC refers to most GA aircraft by
the last three characters of their registration number, so it is
reasonable that you may be only using that part of your registration
number in your e-mail address. It is also possible that Grumman-581
may refer to an aircraft type and not a registration number at all;
after all, it contains no initial 'N' to provide a clue that it is
actually an FAA registration number.

>You wouldn't prehaps be an FAA controller, would you?

Nope. I'm just a fellow airman.

>Many of them seem to have a problem with the concept of "small plane, small number"
>also...

I failed to notice in your articles posted to rec.aviation.piloting
any reference to the fact that you own a small sized aircraft. Are
you able to provide a citation where that information is readily
apparent?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but only pointing out that there is a
bit of ambiguity if not a modicum of presumption in expecting folks to
interpret Grumman-581 as an FAA registration number.


Best regards,
Larry Dighera


PS: I have used my correct e-mail address on Usenet since first
posting articles in 1985. I choose not to grant the e-mail harvesting
'bots the power to coerce me into intentionally introducing errors in
my e-mail address.

[Grumman-581]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

OK, I'm using Google Groups right now and your domain is not getting
stripped, so I'll reply...

> Everything I said in my reply, I would say to your face. What was it
that
> offended you about the reply?

Actually, nothing about the reply... I just hate the anonymous ****s
who refuse to take responsibility for their actions... Why don't you do
a search on Google Groups for all messages by "Nomen Nescio" and see if
you agree with every one of them, because by using that anonymous
remailer, you are associating yourself with them...

Of particular note is the following:
"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Apr 4, 11:40 am)."

Not willing to allow your comments to stay around for any length of
time even when you're hiding behind an anonymous remailer?

> I see discussions on usenet as being similar to conversations with
strangers
> at a party....I rarely tell anyone anything except my first name and
almost
> never give someone my address, phone number, e-mail, etc.

So, do that on USENET also... Plenty of people use monikers on USENET
and thus don't reveal their real names... If the person is causing
enough problems, someone might go to the effort to report them to their
ISP to see if their actions violate the ISP's TOS...

> You're probably not familiar with PGP Signatures.

Yeah, I'm familiar with them... I've had DoD certs... Can't get much
more nonrepudiation than that...

> Would you care to post your full name, address, phone number, SS#,
etc. to
> prove that you truly are unconcerned about your privacy? I thought
not.

Nawh, I make you have to look it up on the FAA database... It's got
most of that in the various databases... SSNs are not made public
anymore... Which is just as well, it's just so inconvenient having to
dispose of the bodies of those individuals who attempt identity
theft... Especially since I'm up in Cedar Rapids these days and there
aren't any gators around...

> And YES, I would say everything I've written here to your face.

You might be one of the few individuals who use anonymous remailers who
can say that... Why then would you thus want to associate yourself with
such a bunch of cowardly ****s?

[kontiki]

Just another of the reasons why commercial airlines are in such sick shape today.
Little old ladies poked and prodded and have their tweezers confiscated.... etc.

Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but not much.

[Jose]

> I just hate the anonymous ****s
> who refuse to take responsibility for their actions...

One reason for anonymity is the other ****s who will track somebody down
and do violence (in meatspace or cyberspace) to those whose opinions
they object to strenuously enough. It's a two edged sword. Even our
founding fathers "posted" anonymously at times.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581]

Jose wrote:
> One reason for anonymity is the other ****s who will track somebody
down
> and do violence (in meatspace or cyberspace) to those whose opinions
> they object to strenuously enough. It's a two edged sword.

Then one should either be prepared to defend their position at all
times or not let their mouth get them in a situation that they can't
handle... If you start spamming a group from your real account, you
have a level of accountability in that someone might just be ****ed off
enough to report you to your ISP and you'll get your account
cancelled... By posting via an anonymous remailer, you are saying that
you don't have to have responsibility for your actions... If it is
worth saying then you should stand behind what you said...

[Jose]

> Then one should either be prepared to defend their position at all
> times or not let their mouth get them in a situation that they can't
> handle.

One should always be prepared to defend one's position intellectually.
One shouldn't have to defend it bodily.

> If you start spamming a group

We're not necessarily talking about spam. That's not the only reason
people use anonymity. Posting (on-topic) opinions with which some
people have violent disagreements is another. While that may not happen
here, it is not unheard of on the rest of the net.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581]

Larry,

We have conversed on the newsgroup before...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_frm/thread/811959bb76d9000/02e0369e21ef8686?q=larry+group:rec.aviation.piloti ng+author:grumman581&rnum=1#02e0369e21ef8686
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_frm/thread/ee9ec03ef52fe49f/16a621aa9cfe6635?q=larry+group:rec.aviation.piloti ng+author:mike+author:shelley&rnum=2#16a621aa9cfe6635
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_frm/thread/b2f48037a6c50329/95372ac56f84795c?q=larry+group:rec.aviation.piloti ng+author:mike+author:shelley&rnum=5#95372ac56f84795c
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.owning/browse_frm/thread/2b062fc5fba04724/1b91da2fbf923232?q=larry+group:rec.aviation.piloti ng+author:mike+author:shelley&rnum=6#1b91da2fbf923232

Some were before I started using my aircraft type and tail number in my
posts...

> First, let me say that I agree with your assessment of anonymously
> posted articles. Anonymity fosters irresponsibility.

Agreed... That might not be the case with the one currently on r.a.p.,
but he has the same posting name as all the other anonymous cowards
that are trolls at best and as such, not worth reading... By
continuing to use that posting name, he has linked himself with them
and I don't think that they are really the types that one would want
to be associated with...

> How am I supposed to know that your aircraft is not large enough to
> display the normal 5-character registration number? Where is that
> fact stated?

A simple Google search would bring up a lot of posts from me... In
some of them, you'll even find my real name and where my plane was
based at that point in time... Because of my profession, the location
of the plane changes, but I try to keep the FAA database updated with
the latest info...

> As you know, after initial contact, ATC refers to most GA aircraft by
> the last three characters of their registration number, so it is
> reasonable that you may be only using that part of your registration
> number in your e-mail address.

Perhaps, but if one wants to ensure that they have an email address
that is not used by anyone, one should use their full registration
number...

> It is also possible that Grumman-581 may refer to an aircraft
> type and not a registration number at all; after all, it contains
> no initial 'N' to provide a clue that it is actually an FAA
> registration number.

Awh, come on Larry, you're being intentionally obtuse... <grin>

> I failed to notice in your articles posted to rec.aviation.piloting
> any reference to the fact that you own a small sized aircraft. Are
> you able to provide a citation where that information is readily
> apparent?

Google search will show that it is an AA5A... You might even find a
link to a photo of it...
Since I move around a bit, some of those links might not be active
anymore... here's a link that is valid right now...
http://s-h-c.frwh.net/Misc-Images/n581-nm.jpg

> PS: I have used my correct e-mail address on Usenet since first
> posting articles in 1985. I choose not to grant the e-mail harvesting
> 'bots the power to coerce me into intentionally introducing errors in
> my e-mail address.

I was getting a lot of virus emails at one time, so I started
obfuscating my email address slightly... At one time, I was changing
it monthly just to **** with the email harvesters... I would use an
address like so that the year and month
was specified in the email address... It was especially good for when
I had to sign up for something which I didn't want return spam...

Mike Shelley
(Replace ### with my tail number to reply)
319-295-9453 (office)
3191 9th St., #6
Marion, IA 52302

[Grumman-581]

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
> We're not necessarily talking about spam. That's not the only reason
> people use anonymity. Posting (on-topic) opinions with which some
> people have violent disagreements is another. While that may not happen
> here, it is not unheard of on the rest of the net.

What, we don't have violent discussions on taildraggers vs trikes? Damn
political correctness strikes again...

I still think that one should be willing to be held accountable for their
actions... If a person crossposts some totally off-topic bull**** across a
bunch of newsgroups and I can determine how they're posting it (either their
ISP or via Google Groups), I'll report it to the appropiate abuse
department... If they're not crossposting, I'm probably a bit more tolerant,
especially if they aren't using an anonymous remailer... I figure that if
they are willing to stake the possibility of losing their ISP on their
comments, I'll cut them a little slack, no matter how braindead their post
might happen to be...

[Grumman-581]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Well, I've killfiled the new remailer ID on my machine, but can't seem
to do it for Google Groups, so I'll reply... You don't seem like the
rest of the idiots that use the "Nomen Nescio" posting ID, so there is
a chance that you might be able to understand reasoning and as such, no
longer be guilty by association... I'll try to explain it to you on the
hope that perhaps you might "see the light"...

Nothing about the reply... If it had come from a non remailer account,
I would have addressed the issues that it brought up... If you look at
all the other posts by the various individuals using the remailer who
all appear as "Nomen Nescio", you might get an idea of why it is so
detestable...

> So do I! I posted an on topic response to some comments you made
regarding
> flying with a handgun. I was accurate, civil, and courteous. So you
launch
> into an off topic attack without provocation, throw in a few 4 letter
words,
> and come off looking more like a troll than I have in anything I've
posted.
> Do you have enough class to hold yourself accountable and apologize?
> I thought not!

I have said nothing for which I have a need to apologize... I would
have had no problem with your original reply -- if it had come from a
non remailer account, I would have addressed the issues that it brought
up... If you look at all the other posts by the various individuals
using the remailer who all appear as "Nomen Nescio", you might get an
idea of why it is so detestable...

> So that's why you hate anonymous remailers, it makes it tough for you
to
> play "Netcop". Well, there's one good reason I use remailers.....To
> irritate peoplelike you who consider themselves the self appointed
> guardians of Usenet.

Yeah, I'll admit it -- when I see someone posting a pyramid scheme or
some other sort of scam, I'll try to report it to their ISP... Your
type of attitude is the same as the neighbor who sees someone's house
being broken into and just watches, figuring that since it wasn't *his*
house, he shouldn't get involved... I'm from Texas -- we shoot the
people breaking into our neighbors' houses and IT'S LEGAL...

> My, that's very nice of you!
> And it leads me into reason #2 for using a remailer.....I'm not going
to
> allow any loon that I encounter on Usenet to have the power to "cut
(me)
> a little slack"...or not.

In other words, you're hiding from the responsibility of your
actions...

> And, Yes, I would say everything I posted here to your face, also.

If that is in fact the case, why do you align yourself with all the
other cowardly anonymous posters that go through the remailers... It's
a matter of being able to easily identify a post coming from a
particular person so that others know who they are talking to... How
does someone not know that you're one of the other wackos that are
using the "Nomen Nescio" ID? If you are so afraid of using your real
name, you could use Google Groups with some sort of moniker tied to a
HotMail account that you delete after setting it up... At least with
that sort of scenario, you have created a name that might uniquely
identify you and as such, others won't think that might be the same
person as one of the others who posted under the "Nomen Nescio"
remailer ID... Maybe you could post under some ID like
"Not-So-Private-Pilot-1234" where "1234" is some number that means
something enough to you that you won't forget it... Do you actually
*like* posting under an ID where someone else can post something and
people will think that it is from you?

[Roger]

On 29 Mar 2005 07:46:05 -0800, "Grumman-581" >
wrote:

>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>Well, I've killfiled the new remailer ID on my machine, but can't seem
>to do it for Google Groups, so I'll reply... You don't seem like the
>rest of the idiots that use the "Nomen Nescio" posting ID, so there is
>a chance that you might be able to understand reasoning and as such, no
>longer be guilty by association... I'll try to explain it to you on the
>hope that perhaps you might "see the light"...

That name is aparently used by so many anomyous and disagreeable
posters it comes out as guilty by association even before people read
what is said.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Grumman-581]

"Roger" wrote in message ...
> That name is aparently used by so many anomyous and disagreeable
> posters it comes out as guilty by association even before people read
> what is said.

Agreed... If you do a search on Google Groups for the posts by that name,
you get quite a few, but there has been significantly more because they set
the X-Archive to 'no'... No only are they to cowardly to say what they say
with something that might be traceable, they don't have the balls to let it
stay around in the archives for posterity... I figure that if it was worth
saying the first time, you shouldn't mind it staying around forever...

I guess it would kind of be like someone who says they wear a white sheet
and hood because it is comfortable and it doesn't matter that the only other
people wearing that is the KKK... Sorry, but you're guilty by association...
I've encountered anonymous remailer individuals on other newsgroups and they
have always been trolls... There is no way that they would have the balls to
say what they say in person... That may be different with the individual who
is using it on this group, but I guess I won't get a chance to find out
because I killfile the domains of the anonymous remailers regardless of
whether I agree with the poster or not...

It's possible that the person who is using the remailer on this newsgroup is
simply misguided... Since he has X-Archive set to 'no', it's not like I
could look back in the archives to see if he actually is a reasonable
(albeit misguided) person...

[Skywise]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in
news:gzK2e.121325$Ze3.94841@attbi_s51:

> "Roger" wrote in message
> ...
>> That name is aparently used by so many anomyous and disagreeable
>> posters it comes out as guilty by association even before people read
>> what is said.
>
> Agreed... If you do a search on Google Groups for the posts by that
> name, you get quite a few, but there has been significantly more because
> they set the X-Archive to 'no'... No only are they to cowardly to say
> what they say with something that might be traceable, they don't have
> the balls to let it stay around in the archives for posterity... I
> figure that if it was worth saying the first time, you shouldn't mind it
> staying around forever...
>
> I guess it would kind of be like someone who says they wear a white
> sheet and hood because it is comfortable and it doesn't matter that the
> only other people wearing that is the KKK... Sorry, but you're guilty by
> association... I've encountered anonymous remailer individuals on other
> newsgroups and they have always been trolls... There is no way that they
> would have the balls to say what they say in person... That may be
> different with the individual who is using it on this group, but I guess
> I won't get a chance to find out because I killfile the domains of the
> anonymous remailers regardless of whether I agree with the poster or
> not...
>
> It's possible that the person who is using the remailer on this
> newsgroup is simply misguided... Since he has X-Archive set to 'no',
> it's not like I could look back in the archives to see if he actually is
> a reasonable (albeit misguided) person...

I know I'm relatively new to this group, mostly lurking and
having posted only a few times, but this sub-thread has really
caught my attention and would like to offer some observations.

For one thing, I know of some folks in other newsgroups that I
participate in that post anonymously and they are far from being
trolls. Why they chose to post anonymously is their own business.
But they are good contributors to those groups.

Besides, in my personal experience anyway, I encounter more trolls
that use real (or fake) email addresses than those who post
anonymously. Filtering anonymous remailers may nuke a few unwanted
messages but it may also nuke some good legit messages. What
about all the other trolls that don't use anonymous remailers?

I also can't help but notice there are more posts in this thread
complaining about anonymous posters, about ignoring them, and why
they are bad than there are actual anonymous posts.

Lastly, there are very legitimate uses of anonymous remailers and
mail-to-news gateways. I have used them on occasion myself.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Grumman-581]

"Skywise" wrote in message ...
> For one thing, I know of some folks in other newsgroups that I
> participate in that post anonymously and they are far from being
> trolls. Why they chose to post anonymously is their own business.
> But they are good contributors to those groups.

That has not been my experience...

> Besides, in my personal experience anyway, I encounter more trolls
> that use real (or fake) email addresses than those who post
> anonymously. Filtering anonymous remailers may nuke a few unwanted
> messages but it may also nuke some good legit messages. What
> about all the other trolls that don't use anonymous remailers?

If they have the balls to take responsibility for their actions, I don't
have a problem with them... If they hide behind an anonymous remailer, they
get killfiled... If there is a person that is so clueless that they chose to
associate themselves with the cowardly anonymous remailers and their posts
don't make it through, so be it -- acceptable collateral damages...

> I also can't help but notice there are more posts in this thread
> complaining about anonymous posters, about ignoring them, and why
> they are bad than there are actual anonymous posts.

It's the principle of the thing...

> Lastly, there are very legitimate uses of anonymous remailers and
> mail-to-news gateways. I have used them on occasion myself.

If someone is using one, they're hiding from something... They don't have
the balls to accept the repercussions of their words... If they're not
willing to own up to what they say, why should someone waste their time
reading their dribble?

[Barney]

I work baggage for CO..........they don't cover for lost
articles..........that's what the bag is........lost articles are a nuisance
for the airlines........people leave all kinds of things.....they take lots
of time and money away from them..........would you like us to wipe your
butt too?


http://www.newbid.net/index.asp

[Dave Stadt]

"Barney" > wrote in message
...
> I work baggage for CO..........they don't cover for lost
> articles..........that's what the bag is........lost articles are a
nuisance
> for the airlines........people leave all kinds of things.....they take
lots
> of time and money away from them..........would you like us to wipe your
> butt too?
>
>
> http://www.newbid.net/index.asp
>

We would like you to not steal or lose our belongings and in return we will
take care of our own butts. Deal?

[Slow-Flyte]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Ok, Now you're REALLY getting on my nerves. Would you care
> to discuss these "repercussions" that you keep mentioning.

I believe he said that he killfiled your domain. It looks like you got
the last word in though :-)

[Slow-Flyte]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Oh, I'm pretty sure the dickless wonder read it. He just can't back
up his
> tough talk. Outside of stirring up a lot of **** with someone's ISP,
what
> the hell can he really do. And really, most ISP's would tell him to
go
> screw himself, anyway.
> Let's face it, the Dizum remailer has been around for at least 5
years.
> If the moron can't figure out how to killfile a domain in that length
of
> time, he probably needs a set of instructions posted over the toilet
paper
> roll. And I've never figured out the mentality of someone who feels a
need
> to announce that they are "going to killfile" someone. I guess it
gives the
> wimp a sense of power. It's always seemed analagous to a little kid
sticking
> his fingers in his ears and going "la.la.la.la.la" to act like he
isn't
> listening to someone, though.
> I've never killfiled anyone on Usenet and I won't killfile this turd,
either.
> But I certainly won't be offering him any helpful advice in the
future.
> Nope, the loudmouth wouldn't dare post his list of "repercussions"
'cause
> any theats he could offer would probably be just cause for the State
of
> Texas to pull his Concealed Carry Pistol Permit faster than he
finishes a
> romantic encounter with his sister.

I believe that the dizum remailer's domain is not constant, so perhaps
that's why he was ****ed that it popped up again. You have to admit
that it tends to be used by a lot of trolls though. I suspect that the
non-trolls who use it are the exception, not the rule. As such, I
suspect that he figures that you are just guilty by association. It
appears that the concept of being totally anonymous makes him somewhat
irate. To each his own, I guess.

[Grumman-581]

"Slow-Flyte" wrote in message
ups.com...
<snip>

As long as no one quotes the cowards from that domain, I don't read 'em...
One of the more irritating things about the anonymous remailers is that you
have multiple people posting with the same ID, so you can't just killfile
the spammers and not affect the one or two posters who just have some sort
of misguided sense of security... Yeah, I guess anonymous posting does get
be a tad "irate"... The Google Groups posters are fairly anonymous also, but
they don't irritate me as much since at least they each have a different
name that I can killfile if they start spamming the group...

As far as him offering helpful advise, why would I want any from someone who
hides behind a remailer anyway? As far as Texas pulling my CHL, it's
unlikely and even if they did, it wouldn't make a bit of difference on
whether I had a firearm with me... He's just another coward hiding behind a
remailer anyway... Hell, he's not even worth wasting a bullet on anyway...
Now, a chain behind a pickup, that's entirely different... <evil-grin>

[StellaStarr]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>
>
> Ok, Now you're REALLY getting on my nerves.
>

This has gone so far past the point of being useful, entertaining or
justifiable. Would you two pathetic losers take your bickering private
and leave some electrons for people conversing in a public forum? You
are such an embarrassment. Shut UP!

[Grumman-581]

"StellaStarr" > wrote in message
news:o1p3e.8290$Vx1.31@attbi_s01...
<snip>

Well, we *could* continue our discussion via email... Oh, wait a minute, no
we can't because he's hiding behind an anonymous mailer... Oh well...

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 20:10:09 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:

> ... the dickless wonder ...
> ... Outside of stirring up a lot of **** ...
> ... tell him to go screw himself,
> ...
> ... If the moron can't figure out ...
> ... posted over the toilet paper roll. ...
> ...
> ... I guess it gives the wimp a ...
> ...
> ... this turd ...
> ...
> ... Nope, the loudmouth ...
> ...
> ... faster than he finishes a romantic encounter with his sister.


You are the man! Go for it! We need more of you kind. NOT.

#m

f-up2poster!
--
It's not like I'm a terrorist or a hair dresser or anything.
http://www.ensight.org/archives/2005/03/16/issues-with-immigration/trackback/