When I was 13 years old in 9th grade, I learned in debate class of the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem, which means "to/ against the man" in Latin. It means mouthing off about the kind of person your debate opponent is in an attempt to discredit his case rather than answering his argument.
I am 39 years old, and thru the years the # of times I have been right while an expert/ elder has been wrong is equal to the reverse.
This thread reminds me of when I was 23-25 y/o, recently grad. from University, and my father tried to force me to knuckle under by accusing me of 'thinking I knew everything' if I dared to disagree with him, even if the facts were on my side. Such behavior resulted eventually in my changing my last name legally.
IMO, it is ELDERS who tend to think they know everything. 'Because I'm older/ smarter/ more expert, I am automatically right,' & 'You're too young/dumb/rookie to know ANYTHING,' & 'I know best, therefore you are incompetent to run your own life,' are the HEART of know-it-all-ism.
By the logic of the poster above, anyone who sticks to his guns or refuses to be a sheep could be called a know-it-all. To believe that one knows SOMETHING that you don't is a far cry from believing that one knows EVERYTHING.
In contrast, when I am WRONG and someone else is RIGHT, I admit it gracefully, even if s/he is younger/ less expert/ of a lower IQ than myself.
In conclusion, please talk to each other lady/gentleman -to- lady/gentleman.

First of all, we really do not know how the hijackers got the knives, and my belief is that the public still does not know what really happened.

Secondly, employees should go through elaborate security checks also. I saw a show on TV where an El-Al security expert said the same thing. There was a case mentioned of how a disgruntled airline employee once bypassed security and caused an airline crash. The security expert also said that there must be a comprehensive approach to security, not just patches here and there. I believe that this is what UALover7 is saying, and I agree with him - whatever the age of UALover7.

As I noted in my original post Zack, I was being sarcastic. Perhaps sarcasm isn't the best way of communicating but it did accurately reflect how I felt at the time.

Guy, I couldn't care less whether you are 16 or 66 or 166. If you have something to say, I think you are just as entitled as anyone else around here to say it.

Your FT friend,
-levi aka eastwest

I'm sorry, I did not realize that the entire comment was sarcastic, I only thought the first part was. My extreme apologies, the post will be edited!

YOUR FlyerTalk Frend,

Zach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by UALover7:
[B] 4.) I never stated in that quote that I knew more than any older person, nor did I say that I "knew it all". Read it again, and try and analyze it better next time, jerk. I only said that my opinion should not be disregarded because of my age, not that it was superior to anyone elses. Your setting ANOTHER good example, sterotyping me as a classic teenager from what you see on televison. Get out more, there are teenagers as CEO's of companies! I feel bad for your kids!

UALover7, We will just have to politely agree to disagree. You have edited the message above. Both versions of your post were derogatory and called me different names. You clearly intended to insult me. My intent toward you was not to insult and I am sincerely sorry if it came across that way to you or anyone else. I won't resort to name calling.

Your first post said I was some old person in an ugly sort of way. I am 47 and most people my age don't think that is old at all - perhaps people your age do. You also told me to never have kids. Again, you were trying to insult me. I clearly stated in the first post that I have a son. Also, I never watch TV except ocassionally FOX News, so TV doesn't influence what I know about teenagers. You are making an assumption here which doesn't hold up.

Now you call me a jerk. Well, if it makes you feel better do so. I will not call you any names. I don't want to contribute any further to this disagreement on FT. These boards are mostly a friendly helpful place. I want to try to make peace with you regardless of whether we agree with one another. Is that okay with you? I will say once again that I wish you well.

Screening ground employees is an impractical solution, as once past security, there is access to any number of potentially dangerous tools, etc. required to do one's job in the heavily mechanized ramp environment. What may be improved is the screening of these employees for criminal history. Several of the ground service companies to whom ground services are outsourced have employees who exalt in wearing their gang symbols and colors on the ramp, something I have never seen tolerated with airline employees.

You may or may not have noticed that I metntion that I think all dangerous weapons that are clearly weapons (e.g. Knives, Box Cutters, etc...) be cataloged, and checked before the closing of the doors.

Example would be 3 box cutters for fodd service at gate A1.

Before closing, security manager for A1 checks to see all 3 remain on the ground.

And as for paradocs...
1.) You called me younge in an ugly kind of way, to quote you correctly FOR A CHANGE...

2.) Making inferences on words not written, eh? I never said it, so dont you even try to wuote me on that!

However in you original post...
Someone contradicting themselves??? I belive that was name calling. You insult me for being dumb only due to my age and no other factor, and then try to make your peace...No thanks!

can you go have your little spat on email? or meet up someplace and have a good old-fashioned fistfight? i have lost track of which one of you is the insolent unwise teenager, and which is the old, dumb, earning-less-than-a-CEO-teenager, but youre both pretty tiring. my money is on the teenage to beat the old-fart in three rounds.

to respond to the first post - i think that while the investigation is open, that the government isnt obligated to tell us EVERYTHING because it may jeopardize the work, or national security or some such.

do we have any lawyers who handle freedom of information stuff, who could clear up whether the government HAS to tell us?

also, even they told us, im not sure what we will do with that information? background checks would be nice for all ground crew, but everyone has a clean background before their first offense. im not saying dont do it, but i am saying, dont assume it suddenly makes things safe.

somebody made the point here, or somewhere else, that now when people do dumb things on planes, the pax are way more likely to attack them right back, under the assumption that they are going to die anyway. the new reactions on the part of pilots, crew, and pax make hijacking american planes a whole new ballgame. thats going to be the best deterrent we have. terrorists dont care about dying, but they do care about assessing the probablility of success.

and im sure there is more interesting and important stuff the govt isnt telling us as well, like about UFOs, and bigfoot, and all that cool stuff that we cared about before 9/11.

How would you propose accounting for all of the "dangerous weapons", even if catalogued, that are being used or are available at every other gate in the airport? It does not help much having the "box cutters" secure at gate A1 if their peers at every other gate are not also secured. Yet it seems rather impractical to require that all work be stopped and all "dangerous weapons" across the airport be checked each time a plane is ready to depart.

That was an example of what would happen at each gate, not just A1.

Well, would your opinion be different had you been the passenger on flight 11, 77, 93, or 175?

If we can prevent it, why not?

I never said that the government HAD to tell us eveything, I was just wondering why this HUGE story (which turns the investing 'inward') was never released.

EDITED TO FIX BOLD IN QUOTE ERRORS

[This message has been edited by UALover7 (edited 10-11-2001).]

It would be wholly impractical to have all work at the airpot cease every time one plane was ready to depart so that simultaneous check-ins of "dangerous weapons" at all gate and tarmac-accessible facilities could occur.

Ground crews would be unable to complete their work on time when repeatedly interrupted for check-ins, gate delays would then ensue, and, in turn, would further complicate and delay the check-in process each and every time another plane was set to depart.

And no, my opinion does not differ despite having friends and colleagues who perished both in the towers and on one of the planes.

Finally, the conversation becomes mature, thank-you wingstheone!

I am not saying that they should halt all operations, I am saying, perhaps, they could attach bar codes to each clearly identifiable weapon such as knives and box cutters. These would have to be scanned as sitting still, such as being hung on a rack/nail, for say a red light to stop blinking atop the gates Bridge. Once it stops, the plane can leave. This way all weapons can be accounted for with no human action neccesary. In fact, this process would not change the ramp workers daily process, so long as they always put back the tools where they are supposed to!

This is just a proposed solution to the problem that I brought up to discuss.

UALover7 and others who think age is no indicator of mature and responsible action, I would point you to statistics behind insurance premiums. Obviously on a case by case basis age can be irrelevant but statistically speaking age does make a difference.

We all have allot to learn regardless of our age, and if anything as we get older we get a better understanding of how much we don't know. This makes us slower to judge, insult, and be narrow minded. Sometimes it even makes us more appreciative of the efforts and sacrifices that those who have come before us have made on our collective behalf (Nov 11 is coming up, don't forget the veterans). For example, using material wealth as the sole yardstick by which a person's character should be judged is woefully narrow-minded. None of my heroes died with, or have, a particularly large bank account, but then again maybe Bill gates IS the greatest human being ever to walk the face of the earth.

But hey, what do I know? If you say "not much", hey, I would have to agree.

As far as the government not telling us everything, history is full of that. Sometimes it has been because of security issues but usually it is because those in charge think that the public can't handle the truth. I think they must make their decisions about what is best for Joe and Jane Public by picturing the lowest common denominator in the population.

Edited because I still haven't learned to spell



[This message has been edited by Mvic (edited 10-11-2001).]

Thank you for ascribing the poor attributes of a few to each individual. That is both a classy and intelligent move. I can only hope you aren't a cop, or I fear for our minority population.

I'm sorry I am getting so worked up over this, but young people get the shaft in every regard. We get the shaft when we destroy the environment, because, heck, you'll be dead by the time it makes any difference. We get the shaft when it comes to fiscal policy- who cares if Social Security is unviable by 2045, you'll likely be dead. Who cares if in 2030 average income tax rates are somewhere around 50%, suffocating the economy, because your generation wanted a tax break so you could buy an even larger SUV. You'll be retired, and we'll be paying the enormous burden of your social security.

Not only do you collectively cast this difficult future upon us with impunity, but you describe yourselves as "the greatest generation" and the like, while younger people are stereotyped as lazy and selfish.
Oh, yes, and now, ignorant.

Nobody speaks up for younger people. There is no effective lobby for people under 25. Say UALLover7 was a minority (and he may very well be) and you came on this board and told him he a foolish (insert your racial slur here)- do you have any idea about how you would ridden out of town on a rail, and how fast - and rightly so?

But with age, you feel the inaliable right to disparage people simply because they are younger than you. Boy, that's rich.

I'm not making an exact analogy between age and racism. Obviously that's flawed. But it is not without parallels. Who will you send off to die to fight your wars? Upon who will you cast the burden of propping up your incredibly malfunctioning social securty system? And who will pay for your Caligula-style budget deficits of the 1980's and now 2000's?

Today's young people will. And yet you call it "the folly of youth"? Hah!

People can say this with impunity and without any fear of reprisal because young people have colecitvely little power- politically, financially, and organizationally.

But some of us don't like it, and aren't going to take your ascribing the flaws of the few to the many without comment.

I apologize, because this thread has gone horribly OMNI and probably should be placed there. But I don't apologize for my defense of individuals of the younger generation.

...........