Originally Posted by
InkUnderNails
I usually agree with you, but this time you are underestimating the insidious nature of the "bad guys." (Quoted from up thread, not a phrase I would use otherwise.)
You see, they have developed a new explosive that remains safe as long as it is contained in little bottles. ...
Now you know. Glad I could help.
I was outstanding in Physics but only so-so in Chemistry, so I appreciate the help. Please don't adjust your meds; this is more entertaining.
Originally Posted by
747FC
I learned 45 years ago in middle-school debate class to speak about issues and not to use ad-hominem arguments. It is quite a surprise that not everyone got this training.
One of you recently had your post censored because you violated FT rules and made disparaging comments against Americans. Others, rather than state arguments in support or against a position, make absolutely silly references. Some like to presume that one condition invariabile follows from an assertion. My introductory logic professor would roll in his grave.
Flyer Talk can be a wonderful forum for sharing experiences and guiding those in need. It can also be a forum where unfortunately, people show and uncomplimentary side of themselves. Pax vobiscum.
Okay, let's be serious and polite, then. You said:
Originally Posted by
747FC
... The liquid ban was not a "knee jerk reaction," but one that --while causing endless hassles to the traveling public-- has kept other planes and people from going down. My hat is off to the intelligence agencies that are least trying to find ways to cope with evolving threats.
and
Originally Posted by
747FC
I am suggesting that I'd rather not be flying with people bringing unknown liquids into the plane, or --for that matter-- bringing even short knives into the plane. It is a known fact that unregulated liquids and box cutters have brought down planes.
So my questions are:
1) Are you comfortable with lots of different people - some of whom may be working together - bringing lots of little bottles of "unregulated liquids" on board the aircraft (that is, the status quo), but uncomfortable with people bringing larger bottles of unregulated liquids on board (the pre-2006 scenario)?
2) If you are, then why? Do you believe that it is too difficult, too time-consuming, too much trouble, physically impossible, [some other option] for people to combine the "unregulated" contents of small bottles into a larger bottle?
3) If you're not comfortable flying in a plane full of people all of whom may have lots of little bottles, then why do you believe that the "liquid ban is... one that... has kept other planes and people from going down"?
4) If you believe that the liquid ban - which confiscates large liquids from passengers at the checkpoint - has kept planes from being blown up, then do you believe that some of the large liquids which have been confiscated were dangerously explosive? If so, then are you comfortable with the possibility of having a TSA employee throw a bottle of dangerously explosive liquid into a regular trashcan 4 feet from where you're standing in line? Why?
5) Or do you believe that the liquids ban results in a Catch-22 scenario where the "bad guys" leave their explosives at home because they'll be confiscated, so the only liquids confiscated at the checkpoint are actual Pepsi and shampoo?
I'm willing to be serious; are you willing to answer these questions?