Originally Posted by Bart
Not so fast. First of all, you generally have two types of posts from passengers in this forum: those who disagree with the very concept of screening and view any security measure as an affront to individual liberty and civil rights and those who accept the reality of airport security but are genuinely interested in finding out why something happened to them at a particular checkpoint.
As I enjoy your contributions, I'll say "not so fast" too.
You claim that people here are either in Camp A or Camp B. Sorry to inform you but individuals here are not living in a world of false dilemmas such as the one intrinsic to your view. People are mostly "menu" people, taking a little bit of this, a little bit of that, none of that, a lot of that, etc.
Originally Posted by Bart
The nature of this website is to address passenger issues and concerns; very few posts address the good things that happen to people; they mostly tend to address the negative experiences. In other words, I don't see very many posts from passengers who make complimentary comments about their screening experiences.
The problem with your assumption/conclusion above (and your words that follow) is that alot of people post positive comments about their travel experiences vis-a-vis certain hotels, hotel brands, airlines, alliances, etc.
[Maybe there's something "special" about the TSA?]
Originally Posted by Bart
You can deduce from this that either people tend to ignore the positive because, after all, there's really nothing to add when something occurs as it's supposed to happen; or you can deduce that there's nothing positive to say.
False dilemma logic again and one that ignores the nature of FT as a whole, where people routinely make choices based on comments here that are all over the spectrum of "positive", "neutral", "negative", "mixed", etc.
Originally Posted by Bart
I think the real answer is more towards the middle and leaning towards the human tendency to complain rather than compliment. And that's okay until you come along and try to jump to a broad conclusion with the statement you just made.
I think the human tendency is to be content or silenced into submission unless danger lurks or something is being taken from them particularly.
Originally Posted by Bart
I understand that the system is not fixed and there are many problems that still need to be addressed. Standardization certainly ranks right up there, and, for what it's worth, it frustrates me, too. It would certainly make my life easier if you knew exactly what to expect when you came through my checkpoint as I'm sure it would make yours easier to know that you can expect the exact same thing when you go through another airport security checkpoint.
I disagree with your comment that screening varies widely. I will agree that it is inconsistent to the point that some checkpoints will ask you to remove a pair of shoes and another will allow you to enter with the exact same pair of shoes worn. This is a legitimate area of concern where TSA has to do a better job of working off of the same sheet of music. However, contrary to your claim, I would venture to say that TSA checkpoints generally follow the same guidelines across the board. I will agree with you up to a certain point that procedures need to be similar, but I think it is naive and unrealistic to expect them to be the exact same. If you insist on this, then I have no choice but to assume you've never worked in security. There has to be some latitude for certain situations; however, the principle should still remain consistent.
We have "standardization" issues "rank[ing] right up there", but then we have you making an assertion that screening does not vary widely. However, it's apparent to many FTers, especially those with the most experience at "crossing the checkpoint" that the process does vary and vary routinely. It varies from airport to airport, from screener to screener, from time to time.