TSA has a fan

Peter Duniho wrote:

And of course, your most recent post, to which I'm replying now, is also a
clear example of a statement that I "did something wrong".

Yep, sure is.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
And of course, your most recent post, to which I'm replying now, is also
a
clear example of a statement that I "did something wrong".

Yep, sure is.

So, if you want me to stop interpreting your posts as a statement that I
"did something wrong", you need to stop posting posts that are statements
that I "did something wrong".

It's pretty simple, really.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
And of course, your most recent post, to which I'm replying now, is also
a
clear example of a statement that I "did something wrong".

Yep, sure is.

So, if you want me to stop interpreting your posts as a statement that I
"did something wrong", you need to stop posting posts that are statements
that I "did something wrong".

It's pretty simple, really.

No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts are critical and
which are not.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts
are critical and which are not.

I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.

In article ,
says...
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts
are critical and which are not.

I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.



OK guys, enough already.
DCMac

"Peter Duniho" wrote

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts
are critical and which are not.

I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.

Probably not much can be added to an exchange that has degenerated
this far. But I can't resist offering the suggestion that the cause of
the degeneration might have been just a misunderstanding about what
was meant by "the new TSA rules make sense". One of you took the
meaning as "the new TSA rules are understandable", and the other took
the meaning as "the new TSA rules are good".

Aside to George and Pete: usually I enjoy reading each of your posts,
as they are often interesting and informative.

Jim Rosinski

"Jim Rosinski" wrote in message
om...
"Peter Duniho" wrote

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts
are critical and which are not.

I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.

Probably not much can be added to an exchange that has degenerated
this far. But I can't resist offering the suggestion that the cause of
the degeneration might have been just a misunderstanding about what
was meant by "the new TSA rules make sense". One of you took the
meaning as "the new TSA rules are understandable", and the other took
the meaning as "the new TSA rules are good".

Of course, these are both false :-)

Aside to George and Pete: usually I enjoy reading each of your posts,
as they are often interesting and informative.

Agree.

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!

There was no security lapse in that incident. A student was allowed to
pre-flight an airplane unescorted, shortly before the student was to be
signed off to solo anyway. Preventing such access would have been completely
pointless. Even under some of the more draconian new restrictions (at BED
now, we need to undergo a fingerprint background check in order to have
unescorted access to the ramp), that student would still have had the same
access privileges!

Of course TSA's alien training rule would not have had anything to say
about
that moron, Charles J. Bishop, who was a US citizen...
Speaking of morons, AOPA has some statements on its website about
TSA's chief who seems to be rather clueless about his department; or
maybe he was still recovering from TSA's $500,000 2-year-anniversary
party.

Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
(and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck). Making
sure that airports are properly fenced in and have a metal
detector/x-ray machine could be a reasonable deterrent.

- Marco

Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat

Why do you think that?

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

In article ,
(Marco Grubert) wrote:

Nevertheless I think stealing GA aircrafts and using them for either
fly-by shootings or in combination with explosives is a real threat
(and even harder to counter than your Oklahoma-bombing truck). Making
sure that airports are properly fenced in and have a metal
detector/x-ray machine could be a reasonable deterrent.

How would that work in Alaska?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.