Re: Feds to Take Over Airline Watch Lists in 2009

[Ari]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:22:57 +0200, Anonymous Remailer wrote:

>> More on what these new rules really mean:
>> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/feds-to-take-ov.html


> These new rules mean nothing to me. I used to fly thousands of miles
> a year. I stopped flying after an airline put me on their suspicion
> list just because an alarm clock I was carrying that had a phosphorus
> display backing set off their bomb sniffer. From that time until I
> decided to no longer fly commercial again, I was triple screened. I
> haven't flown for over 5 years now.
> On another note, home land insecurity is trying to make all private
> pilots and small planes conform to the big new anti-terror airline
> rules.

Such as what? This is a complete exaggeration of the facts. This from a
GA pilot, are you?

> This is totally unnecessary and just another power grab by
> government to control every aspect of our lives in the name os
> preventing terrorism. There has not been another terrorist attack
> (excluding the flight 800 government cover up) since 911,

You say that as if proof is positive, it's not.

> and no small
> planes/private pilots have been involved in terrorism.

Because *you* know of none doesn't make it so.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVydzNJrno

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ari" <> wrote
>
> Because *you* know of none doesn't make it so.

Cite instances.

[Ari]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:02:51 -0400, Morgans wrote:

> "Ari" <> wrote
>>
>> Because *you* know of none doesn't make it so.
>
> Cite instances.

????
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVydzNJrno

[Gezellig]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:32:14 -0400, Ari wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:02:51 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>
>> "Ari" <> wrote
>>>
>>> Because *you* know of none doesn't make it so.
>>
>> Cite instances.
>
> ????

Beats me who he is talking to.

[Ari]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:35:35 -0400, Gezellig wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:32:14 -0400, Ari wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:02:51 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>>
>>> "Ari" <> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Because *you* know of none doesn't make it so.
>>>
>>> Cite instances.
>>
>> ????
>
> Beats me who he is talking to.

Hey, Morgan WTF RU talking 2?
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

[Gene Seibel]

On Oct 24, 12:37*pm, Ari >
wrote:

Who is doing it now?
--
Gene Seibel
Sue Seibel's Pillsbury Doughboys - http://pad39a.com/sue/doughboy.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Ari]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:36:27 -0700 (PDT), Gene Seibel wrote:

> On Oct 24, 12:37*pm, Ari >
> wrote:
>
> Who is doing it now?

Who you talking to? What about? Is this a conspiracy of pitiful
Usenetiqeutte?
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVydzNJrno

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:09:40 -0400, Ari wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:36:27 -0700 (PDT), Gene Seibel wrote:
>
>> On Oct 24, 12:37*pm, Ari >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Who is doing it now?
>
> Who you talking to? What about? Is this a conspiracy of pitiful
> Usenetiqeutte?

I haven't a clue, Ari, I don't know what any of these guys are doing.

[Mike]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:09:40 -0400, Ari wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:36:27 -0700 (PDT), Gene Seibel wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 12:37 pm, Ari >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Who is doing it now?
>>
>> Who you talking to? What about? Is this a conspiracy of pitiful
>> Usenetiqeutte?
>
> I haven't a clue, Ari, I don't know what any of these guys are doing.

That's a blanket statement about most all your posts, Gez.

[Gene Seibel]

On Oct 28, 12:09*pm, Ari >
wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:36:27 -0700 (PDT), Gene Seibel wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 12:37*pm, Ari >
> > wrote:
>
> > Who is doing it now?
>
> Who you talking to? What about? Is this a conspiracy of pitiful
> Usenetiqeutte?
> --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVydzNJrno

I'm asking who controls the watch list now if it's not the Feds.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Flying Machine - http://pad39a.com/gene/
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Ari]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:10:41 -0700 (PDT), Gene Seibel wrote:

> On Oct 28, 12:09*pm, Ari >
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:36:27 -0700 (PDT), Gene Seibel wrote:
>>> On Oct 24, 12:37*pm, Ari >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Who is doing it now?
>>
>> Who you talking to? What about? Is this a conspiracy of pitiful
>> Usenetiqeutte?
>> --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVydzNJrno
>
> I'm asking who controls the watch list now if it's not the Feds.

Oh, ok, the airlines.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVydzNJrno

[Jim Logajan]

Ari > wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:22:57 +0200, Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>> On another note, home land insecurity is trying to make all private
>> pilots and small planes conform to the big new anti-terror airline
>> rules.
>
> Such as what? This is a complete exaggeration of the facts.

While the sweeping statement made by the anonymous poster is incorrect in
parts, the TSA is definitely proposing rules that are (in my humble opinion
anyway) a genuine threat to individual civil liberties, as noted here:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-10-30_tsa.asp

There are many aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds owned by individuals or
small partnerships that are only used for private flights. The proposed
rule would ground all those aircraft until the individuals hire a security
director and develop a complete security system that are acceptable to the
TSA. Applying the TSA requirements to them seems pretty absurd.

It is a shame that the TSA isn't trying to propose similar security rules
for trucks and boats - they'd have their political asses hand to them on
their way out the door (I hope - anyway.) It is only natural they focus on
the politically weakest - irrespective of whether it makes sense.

[Ari]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:34:34 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Ari > wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:22:57 +0200, Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>> On another note, home land insecurity is trying to make all private
>>> pilots and small planes conform to the big new anti-terror airline
>>> rules.
>>
>> Such as what? This is a complete exaggeration of the facts.
>
> While the sweeping statement made by the anonymous poster is incorrect in
> parts, the TSA is definitely proposing rules that are (in my humble opinion
> anyway) a genuine threat to individual civil liberties, as noted here:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-10-30_tsa.asp

No disagreement, Jim.


--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh