Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Call to arms.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 19, 2010, 6:32 am
  #361  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,054
Originally Posted by AngryMiller
Guess that congratulations are in order for Ron becoming the newest moderator....oh, you mean he isn't a moderator?
Actually I meant that it is funny that Ron states he doesn't want to discuss a topic and then asks others to stay on that topic...
Tom M. is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2010, 6:42 am
  #362  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
Originally Posted by Tom M.
Actually I meant that it is funny that Ron states he doesn't want to discuss a topic and then asks others to stay on that topic...
Did you mean funny, or consistent?

While Ron is virtually powerless in his job, he would like to keep the pretense that he is privy to knowledge that many of us could only speculate about.
IslandBased is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2010, 6:55 am
  #363  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,054
Originally Posted by IslandBased
Did you mean funny, or consistent?
(
LOL!
Tom M. is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2010, 10:02 am
  #364  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by TSORon
Originally Posted by greentips
1. I never said anything about destroying currency.
2. If it is in my possession, it is simply not the government's money and will never be the government's money unless I hand it to the government to pay a legal debt, usually taxes, but as I've found out, the IRS doesn't accept cash.
It may be the government's currency, but it is, in fact, my cash. The government is not permitted to have any interest in it.

Therefore, your response, as have been so many others, is a non sequitur.
Interesting theory, but incorrect. Sorry about that, but the facts is the facts.
Theory is in fact, correct. But to be doubly sure, the associate dean of a very noted, top 5 ranked law school goes to my church. I asked him over brunch about this. According to him, who is far smarter in these matters than I, and with unquestioned expertise, the congressional intent of the quoted law is to prevent counterfitting of the currency by fraudulently presenting a bill that has been damaged in exchange for one that has not. this is why the fed has a rule that it will not issue a new bill for a damaged one unless more than 50% of the damaged bill is presented to be exchanged. You are not allowed to damage a $20, present 51% of it to the treasury for a new twenty then present the 49% for another new twenty. Otherwise, burn away. As to the ownership of the cash, it is in essence a bearer instrument. Who has it in his possession owns it. No one else.

I am, in fact, correct, unless the good professor is also incorrect. Always a possibility, but I think, a very remote one.
greentips is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2010, 10:46 am
  #365  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Ron, what would be different about your actions when searching passengers -- the entire search, not just the part where you're supposed to find, by hand, something seen using the X-ray machine -- if we called what you do a search for tennis balls and we declared weapons, explosives, and incendiaries incidental to the search as you presently designate drugs? Would your actions be any different? If not, then what's the difference between what you're doing now and performing a search for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and drugs?
pmocek is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2010, 11:49 am
  #366  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 346
Originally Posted by pmocek
Ron, what would be different about your actions when searching passengers -- the entire search, not just the part where you're supposed to find, by hand, something seen using the X-ray machine -- if we called what you do a search for tennis balls and we declared weapons, explosives, and incendiaries incidental to the search as you presently designate drugs? Would your actions be any different? If not, then what's the difference between what you're doing now and performing a search for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and drugs?
If, during a search, you declared a firearm/drugs, I would immediatly call my supe and have him call the police. We're not looking for drugs, and frankly I don't care if you have an ounce of weed. It's the federal government that cares. Now if you're trying to bring these things through the checkpoint, you need to slapped 'cause you're a moron.
senseker is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2010, 11:50 am
  #367  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by pmocek
Ron, what would be different about your actions when searching passengers -- the entire search, not just the part where you're supposed to find, by hand, something seen using the X-ray machine -- if we called what you do a search for tennis balls and we declared weapons, explosives, and incendiaries incidental to the search as you presently designate drugs? Would your actions be any different? If not, then what's the difference between what you're doing now and performing a search for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and drugs?
Phil, I have been trying for quite some time now to make sense of what you write above, but I'm just not making the trip. Could you possibly rephrase it for me please? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just dont get what you are trying to ask.
TSORon is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2010, 12:32 pm
  #368  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
question about TSA search for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and drugs, rephrased

Originally Posted by TSORon
Originally Posted by pmocek
Ron, what would be different about your actions when searching passengers -- the entire search, not just the part where you're supposed to find, by hand, something seen using the X-ray machine -- if we called what you do a search for tennis balls and we declared weapons, explosives, and incendiaries incidental to the search as you presently designate drugs? Would your actions be any different? If not, then what's the difference between what you're doing now and performing a search for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and drugs?
Phil, I have been trying for quite some time now to make sense of what you write above, but I'm just not making the trip. Could you possibly rephrase it for me please? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just dont get what you are trying to ask.
Sure. Following are two procedures. The first is what seems to be used by TSA now at airport checkpoints where passengers and their belongings are searched. The second is hypothetical. I'd like to know what, if any, difference in the effect of performing each these two procedures, you believe there to be. Consider, for instance, how the actions of the person(s) performing the search would vary depending on which of the two procedures he/she/they performed, when a weapon is discovered, when drugs are discovered, and when a travel pillow is discovered:
  1. TSA staff examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, or incendiary (things for which they are looking) or something that looks like an illegal drug (something which they consider incidental to the search) they must contact a supervisor.
  2. TSA staff examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and illegal drugs. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, incendiary, or illegal drug (things for which they are looking) they must contact a supervisor.

Other than what TSA staff claim to be searching for, is there a difference between each of those two procedures? It seems to me that in effect, they are the same.

Last edited by pmocek; Jan 19, 2010 at 2:41 pm Reason: reword last sentence for clarity
pmocek is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2010, 1:29 pm
  #369  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Originally Posted by pmocek
Sure. Following are two procedures. The first is what seems to be used by TSA now at airport checkpoints where passengers and their belongings are searched. The second is hypothetical. I'd like to know what, if any, difference in the effect of performing each these two procedures, you believe there to be. Consider, for instance, how the actions of the person(s) performing the search would vary depending on which of the two procedures he/she/they performed, when a weapon is discovered, when drugs are discovered, and when a travel pillow is discovered:

Other than what TSA staff claim to be searching for, is there a difference between the effect of performing each of those two procedures?
With respect to the hand/eye search, there really isn't any difference. The x-ray search should be different in that if the x-ray operator sees an item that is not WEI, but is most probably drugs, then a bag check is not to be called.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2010, 2:08 pm
  #370  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Originally Posted by ND Sol
With respect to the hand/eye search, there really isn't any difference. The x-ray search should be different in that if the x-ray operator sees an item that is not WEI, but is most probably drugs, then a bag check is not to be called.
I didn't intend to discuss the way things should be, just the difference between what TSA claims they're doing ("searching for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries", then notifying a supervisor if they find W, E, I, or drugs) and what it seems to me they're doing (searching for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and drugs, then notifying a supervisor if they find W, E, I, or drugs).
pmocek is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2010, 2:11 pm
  #371  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Back to the Nude-O-Scope

Since OP started this track and we've derailed it and sent it everywhere but, I thought you'd like to know that Blogger Bob has clarified what the Nude-O-Scope can and cannot do. PV had a BB comment,
That was an example of what the image looks like. I wasn't implying it was the actual size and resolution our officers see.
He was responding to another comment which said,
There is no other accurate, better-resolution image anywhere in existence other than these? Balderdash. Statements like that diminish your credibility.
I guess we now know: the images we are shown, are not the actual image size and resolution the TSA sees. hmmm.



link
greentips is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2010, 1:21 am
  #372  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by pmocek
Sure. Following are two procedures. The first is what seems to be used by TSA now at airport checkpoints where passengers and their belongings are searched. The second is hypothetical. I'd like to know what, if any, difference in the effect of performing each these two procedures, you believe there to be. Consider, for instance, how the actions of the person(s) performing the search would vary depending on which of the two procedures he/she/they performed, when a weapon is discovered, when drugs are discovered, and when a travel pillow is discovered:
  1. TSA staff examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, or incendiary (things for which they are looking) or something that looks like an illegal drug (something which they consider incidental to the search) they must contact a supervisor.
  2. TSA staff examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and illegal drugs. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, incendiary, or illegal drug (things for which they are looking) they must contact a supervisor.

Other than what TSA staff claim to be searching for, is there a difference between each of those two procedures? It seems to me that in effect, they are the same.
Thanks Phil, that was helpful.

Yes, there is a difference. We do not intentionally look for illegal drugs. If they are found, it is incidental to what we ARE looking for.
TSORon is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2010, 9:58 am
  #373  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
You still didn't answer the question.

Emphasis added:
Originally Posted by TSORon
Originally Posted by phil
Originally Posted by TSORon
Originally Posted by pmocek
Ron, what would be different about your actions when searching passengers -- the entire search, not just the part where you're supposed to find, by hand, something seen using the X-ray machine -- if we called what you do a search for tennis balls and we declared weapons, explosives, and incendiaries incidental to the search as you presently designate drugs? Would your actions be any different? If not, then what's the difference between what you're doing now and performing a search for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and drugs?
Phil, I have been trying for quite some time now to make sense of what you write above, but I'm just not making the trip. Could you possibly rephrase it for me please? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just dont get what you are trying to ask.
Sure. Following are two procedures. The first is what seems to be used by TSA now at airport checkpoints where passengers and their belongings are searched. The second is hypothetical. I'd like to know what, if any, difference in the effect of performing each these two procedures, you believe there to be. Consider, for instance, how the actions of the person(s) performing the search would vary depending on which of the two procedures he/she/they performed, when a weapon is discovered, when drugs are discovered, and when a travel pillow is discovered:
  1. TSA staff examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, or incendiary (things for which they are looking) or something that looks like an illegal drug (something which they consider incidental to the search) they must contact a supervisor.
  2. TSA staff examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and illegal drugs. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, incendiary, or illegal drug (things for which they are looking) they must contact a supervisor.

Other than what TSA staff claim to be searching for, is there a difference between each of those two procedures? It seems to me that in effect, they are the same.
Thanks Phil, that was helpful.

Yes, there is a difference. We do not intentionally look for illegal drugs. If they are found, it is incidental to what we ARE looking for.
I'm not asking about your intent or your claims about your intent; I'm asking about your actions. What would be different about your actions? What would be different about the result of performing each of the two procedures? You might want to consider eight scenarios:
  1. while performing search #1, find something that looks like a weapon
  2. while performing search #2, find something that looks like a weapon
  3. while performing search #1, find something that looks like illegal drugs
  4. while performing search #2, find something that looks like illegal drugs
  5. while performing search #1, find something that looks like a travel pillow
  6. while performing search #2, find something that looks like a travel pillow
  7. while performing search #1, find something that looks like evidence of burglary and transportation of stolen goods (a bag of watches and a photograph of the passenger breaking into a jewelry store)
  8. while performing search #2, find something that looks like evidence of burglary and transportation of stolen goods (a bag of watches and a photograph of the passenger breaking into a jewelry store)

Last edited by pmocek; Jan 21, 2010 at 10:48 am Reason: add 7th and 8th scenarios for Ron's consideration
pmocek is offline  
Old Jan 21, 2010, 2:34 pm
  #374  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Not 'up in the air' until the insanity passes
Programs: AA, UA, DL, CO, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, ex-TSA Elite rectal exam club member
Posts: 89
Instead of causing terror at home and abroad, wouldn’t TSA be more productive if they all went over to Haiti to aid in the rescue, recovery and rebuilding?
John Q. Public is offline  
Old Jan 21, 2010, 2:37 pm
  #375  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Originally Posted by John Q. Public
Instead of causing terror at home and abroad, wouldn’t TSA be more productive if they all went over to Haiti to aid in the rescue, recovery and rebuilding?
I would like to see TSA go elsewhere but those poor people in Haiti have enough problems of their own.
Boggie Dog is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.