Things you cannot say without raising security concerns...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
john smith writes:

Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
interpreted out of context.

Instead of cowering under the bed, you might want to work hard to protect
your
freedom of speech. "Watching what you say" essentially throws that
freedom
away.

Or we could all run away to France, like sniveling cowards.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

john smith writes:

Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
interpreted out of context.

Instead of cowering under the bed, you might want to work hard to
protect your freedom of speech. "Watching what you say" essentially
throws that freedom away.


A code you live by, obviously.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

john smith writes:

Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
interpreted out of context.
Instead of cowering under the bed, you might want to work hard to
protect your freedom of speech. "Watching what you say" essentially
throws that freedom away.


A code you live by, obviously.


Don't be ridiculous. Choosing your words carefully in sensitive
situations, so as not to be misunderstood, has NOTHING to do with free
speech.



--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

Chris W writes:

Don't be ridiculous. Choosing your words carefully in sensitive
situations, so as not to be misunderstood, has NOTHING to do with free
speech.

Choosing your words carefully is essentially censorship. While there might be
_extremely limited_ circumstances in which such censorship might be justified,
engaging in it just to protect yourself from a government that is no longer
willing to respect your freedom is a very dangerous choice. What you don't
use, you lose, and faster than you might think.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Chris W writes:

Don't be ridiculous. Choosing your words carefully in sensitive
situations, so as not to be misunderstood, has NOTHING to do with
free speech.

Choosing your words carefully is essentially censorship.


No it isn't, autisitc boi


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Choosing your words carefully is essentially censorship.

You've got some pretty strange definitions there, Anthony.

On Jun 18, 2:47 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Chris W writes:
Don't be ridiculous. Choosing your words carefully in sensitive
situations, so as not to be misunderstood, has NOTHING to do with free
speech.

Choosing your words carefully is essentially censorship. While there might be

If you and your children were at your grandmother's house for
Thanksgiving dinner, would you say, "Hey Ganny, Pass the ****ing
butter"?

Watching what you say in various settings is good judgement, not
censorship.


_extremely limited_ circumstances in which such censorship might be justified,
engaging in it just to protect yourself from a government that is no longer
willing to respect your freedom is a very dangerous choice. What you don't
use, you lose, and faster than you might think.

john smith wrote:
Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."

Yesterday, a single engine GA pilot was intercepted, forced to land and
was greeted by 20 federal agents. As he was overflying a military base,
he was communicating with the controllers. When queried as to his
destination, he responded that he could not disclose that information
because he was employed in a hostile work environment and that
disclosing the location could give his employers competition a business
advantage. It seems the controller only heard the word "hostile" and
immediately notified the security apparatus.

Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
interpreted out of context.

Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
ring right. If I were overflying a military
base, the last thing I'd do is engage in a
conversation about competitive advantages
and hostile workplaces. If, for some un-
fathomable reason, I didn't want to reveal
my final destination, I'd simply give an
en-route airport. If I felt bad about the
borderline deception, I'd stop at the en-
route airport.

On Jun 14, 4:01 pm, Jim Stewart wrote:
Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
ring right.

It sounds silly, but nevertheless is apparently true:

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/148115.html

When asked over the radio what his destination was, the pilot, a 10-year-plus veteran with commercial airlines and private industry, said he preferred not to say.
Mann said that under the circumstances the pilot was not required to give a destination.
“He didn’t say hijack. … He was trying to explain why he didn’t have to give his destination,” Mann said.
“We work in a hostile business environment,” he said, and competitors could try to use such information to steal clients.
The pilot was speaking about a “hostile takeover” of a company, said Maj. Roger Yates of the Clay County Sheriff’s Department.
The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had heard, but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said.

I'd say the authorities did the right thing not to disregard these
comments. If you are the pilot of a small airplane, and an armed
passenger attempts to hijack it (unlikely, but not impossible), you may
want to hint your condition to ATC without giving away to the passenger
that you are alerting them. That way they can be ready when you land.

Granted, this particular set of comments is a bit oblique, but it might
be what the pilot thought would keep the passenger off guard. Then, to
avoid hearing ATC say "are you being hijacked?", change frequencies.
The passenger might know about 7700 - ATC doesn't know whether this is
the case.

Now, an F16 interception is probably the wrong response. But I suspect
it hasn't been thought through.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.