Originally Posted by mh3265a

Or maybe I didn't read close enough.....seems you jump to conclusions quickly.

However, your argument is absolutely incorrect. You can't just assume the employee is wrong. We only have one side of the story from the OP. From their own admission I suspect there is a lot more to the story than they are alluding.

Is a pat down really that much of an invasion of security especially when the person going through security knows that refusing entry to the screening machine means a pat down. There are many other security techniques that would be far more intrusive.

I personally believe the OP was looking for a problem and created a situation where a problem occurred. They are wasting our time and the government's time with this matter...it's sad....