Sorry you feel that way. If someone accused me of being a "poorly educated, less intelligent member of society" because I was doing my job in order to pay my bills, I might as well act like they think I should.

I, too, have worked in fast food and scrubbed toilets to pay my bills. I've had to dig in dumpsters to find retainers, and had to hose poop off the ceiling in the bathroom. I've had food thrown at me because I wouldn't allow a customer to belittle my employee. I've found a pool of urine in a changing room and had to clean it. I'm still shocked at how poorly the general public (yes, I'm generalizing) treats people who are just doing their job. Hmmm, sounds like our work experience with the public is similar, no?

Do I want to be groped? No, I most certainly don't. Do I want to go through a NOS? No, that's why I have the option of opting out. Do I want to fly home to see my wife and son? Yes, I most certainly do. I'd shovel poop day in and out for them, and if it means a groping, I guess they're worth it. That in no way means I have to like it.

While I certainly don't like what the TSA is doing these days, and I absolutely will not allow my wife and son through a NOS, I have a job to do. Insult me by calling me poorly educated and only worthy of "menial" jobs, and you may watch me get hauled away in cuffs, but you'll be looking over your broken nose to do it. There is never any reason to insult people and judge them solely by their profession, let alone tell them they're too stupid to do a job you aren't willing to do. If you are willing to be a TSA employee, I apologize profusely, and will gladly bow down to your extreme awesomeness. Until then, keep it to yourself.

Absolutely. I can see many reasons
- it may put the witness at risk themselves
- it may put the witness in an awkward position if they do need to act as a witness later if there was in fact a reason for a report, a trial, etc
- many people don't have enough time as it is to make their flight
- a willing witness may be concerned about how long things will take
- many passengers assume that if one requires an additional search (public or private) that one has done something wrong and/or one has something to hide, and may not be willing to assist someone who has done something 'wrong'
- some people would question the request - after all, isn't it rather bizarre to have to approach a stranger because you are being taken away to a private room for a search and you want their assistance?

We talk about this witness here, but to most people this entire concept of a private room search for mundane reasons is just absolutely bizarre. Sitting here at my desk I can think of three reasons off the top of my head why I may find myself requiring a private room search if I were to be flying from a US airport today.

New job?

I'm not willing to be a TSA employee.

Put simply, I'm not willing to lie to people's faces and tell them that I have to either irradiate them or touch their junk in order to "make them safer" when doing so has absolutely no impact whatsoever on their safety.

I'm also not willing to work shoulder-to-shoulder with people who're willing to do so.

And, yes, there are many "professions" that are worth insults and derision. Snake oil fraudsters, cold-calling telemarketers, protection racketeers (which actually have a lot in common with TSA employees, for that matter...)

i was not under the impression that tsa workers were under any obligation to say any such thing. :rolleyes:

Ron,

You still haven´t explained why resolution pat downs are necessarily done in private. I don´t understand the logic behind this rule and would very much appreciate an explanation.

Thank you.

Try getting through a TSA checkpoint without being either irradiated or groped or both.

You will most likely be told that you don't have a choice - you will either be scanned, or given a "pat-down." If you ask them why, they will most likely lie to you.

At least that TSA moron on the stand in pmocek's case simply admitted that he didn't know why they had to check ID...

I really do feel sorry for the children of TSA employees, though - especially if their classmates/friends find out what the parent does for a living.

"Your daddy touches people's junk all day!"

</whispering>Shhhhhh, it's SSI!</whispering> :rolleyes:

And there has been no assurance that a child can not be subjected to a resolution patdown.

This is it!!! This sentence just JUMPED off the screen at me. This just became my prime argument to explain the futility and counterproductive result of the joke that is the TSA. Not only does none of this protect us from a determined terrorist, but it has actually PROVEN time and time again to make us less secure in our possessions by increasing the risk of theft.

To me, this simplifies the whole argument: TSA gives only the cowards the charade of "security" against an infinitesimal risk, while at the same time worsening the very real threat that our possessions will be stolen.

I can't think of a much more compelling argument than that.

Oh, give it up. You've been called on this, and rightly so. Your emperor has no clothes. Your own words:

Says you. Fine, you're entitled. But don't get all warm and cuddly in your follow-up postings and claim you're not saying that other's feelings are not valid. You can't have it both ways. Either you're compassionate for other people's feelings or you're not. You've already made it clear you care about yourself, and if a sexual assault victim's horrifying memories are triggered by "someone brushing against your genitalia through the outside of your pants," so be it -- you say. Fine, we know where you stand. But don't then try getting all compassionate on us to wiggle through your argument.

Are these your words, or aren't they??? Or just what is it you do mean?

They were the folks being asked about, and the folks I provided an answer about.

Correct, I have not. Simply because I am not comfortable getting that close to the SSI line.

So a woman in her 30s, 40s, etc. does not automatically get a female screener, just those 18-21. I just want to be clear on what you're saying.


Okay, here's my take. If someone still alarms after a resolution pat down in the back room, that's a gray area as to what is done next. Said gray area could involve disrobing.

He was asking about 18 to 21 year olds. I answered his question. I did not expand on his question in any way. Please stop reading things into what I am writing that I am not writing. @:-)

Methinks you are correct. ;)