Originally Posted by
FliesWay2Much
Look, pal... We are bloody tired of your drivel. If you have sources to contradict the media reports about your incompetence, sexual assaults and crimes, produce them. We on FT are educated and professional. We are bloody tired of the excuse that "proper procedures were followed." We, many of whom are in the national security and "threat" arena, disagree with your tactics as having anything to do with civil aviation security.
We know peer-reviewed science when we see it and are more than willing and able to engage in professional and competent dialogue on any number of subjects. Many of us have decades of experience in intelligence, national security and defense. We are bloody tired of being talked down to and being lectured to. If you have substance, bring it. We can take it. If you have no substance, don't waste your time and ours.
What will you do when they come for you?
I am glad we are pals, it is nice to find a new one!
I am sorry you consider me voicing facts, and reiterating published information as drivel, I am sorry that you are frustrated because I ask for proof, not conjecture or personal opinions on these types of incidents. I would hope that all of you would request proof of things, and be willing to not accept a blog post or anonymous article or some other social media post as fact, without some form of proof. I sometimes give opinions on what I see - sometimes they are wrong (as I am willing to change my mind when new information becomes available), sometimes they are right. If you have sources that can produce proof to back up what these unnamed sources are stating, I would love to see them - again, not saying that this did not happen, merely that unnamed/anonymous sources are notoriously one sided (their own most of the time), and by definition, unverifiable to outside elements (like us). When a TSO follows proper procedure and you disagree with the procedure, it does not mean that the TSO is in the wrong. The larger discussion to have, is your disagreement with the actual policy, not the individual.
Like some others here, I have plenty of experience in National Security, Homeland Defense, application of Real Time Threat Assessments and Intel, among other things. That experience doesn't mean I am always right on things, nor does it mean I am always wrong - ditto for the others here.
I am glad that you recognize peer reviewed science when you see it, do you also recognize the flaws in a peer reviewed system?
I try my best to not speak down to anyone. I may fail from time to time, but many people mistake dissenting opinions or commentary for speaking down to them. I do not view you as any better or worse than I am, therefore, I do not have a position to speak down from.
Now, that is simply trying to get a rise out of me, or play on emotions. I prefer to not do that, I prefer to stick to the issues or the actual information we have at hand - which in this case, is unconfirmed statements, from unverifiable sources (at least from our POV). Things may have happened exactly as the unnamed sources state, but I am not willing to just accept an unconfirmed/unverifiable information as proof.