Most could care less about grammer ... we just care that a coherent thought is communicated.

The post in question didn't.

I, for one, appreciate it when anyone spends the time to have their posts be in proper spelling and grammer. I am glad that the proliferation of hackerese (or whatever it is they call all the shortcuts that make typing on mini-keyboards easier) has not made it far into FT yet.

Anyway, as the OP, I ask if can we get this thread back on track? Both Keith Alexander's column in the Washington Post and Joe Sharkey's column in the NY Times dealt with this subject today. I thought the issue deserves more attention and commentary in this forum than a hard-to-understand post.

E.g., in the Post column, "Yes, ma'am, just stand over there and wait to be groped."

We are getting OT and not to say I am perfect by any means, but using proper grammar does provide better credibility. It also helps the readers understand the ideas you are trying to convey. If you don't think it is worth your time to proof and review your post, then what should others think about its substance?

Actually, I do find it somewhat commendable that others take the time to point out what the grammar issues are (especially when the issue is repeated over and over). Heck, we might learn a thing or two in addition to FlyerTalk fare.

Could not care less.

Washington Post Article

"Many frequent fliers would like to pass through security without secondary screening. Security has become one of the biggest deterrents for increased traveling, travelers say. To avoid security hassles, a growing number of frequent fliers has begun taking Amtrak or driving on shorter trips.

Penn State University recruiter Evelynn Ellis said she is most concerned about the TSA's plan to identify travelers for additional screening based -- in part -- on a passenger's attire.

"What a riot: I can take my little scissors now, but I'm searched because I am dressed weird that day," she said. "I don't think any of this will make us a bit safer."

New York Times Article

"Most passengers loathe the pat-downs, women especially. Last year, you might remember, there was a rebellion by a sizable number of female travelers claiming that they were being humiliated and even sexually groped at the checkpoints. In response, the T.S.A. cracked down on the more aggressive patters-down and complaints fell off.

But under the new policy, the pat-down will become more intimate - from toe to neck. Avoiding one requires the luck of the draw, not the skill of strategy. Furthermore, screeners themselves will be able to decide at the checkpoint who gets the treatment. As before, only female screeners will pat down women and girls and male screeners will pat down men and boys."

You're a real dog turd, Comrade Kip.

Re. Q1 & Q2: No such "obsessive desire"; and no.

Regarding the difficulty I had with understanding another post, that's a side-matter. I just wanted to understand what was being said. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re. Paragraph 1. I had not.
Re. Paragraph 2. I am not.

Since you claim that "we" type faster than "we" "think", should I expect to see more of the following:

?

Thanks for those references.

As Traveller said: "and see this post for information on N830MH who is hard to understand: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/show...27&postcount=15 "

I read and understood that. Thank you.

The post was hitherto not understandable. I certainly prefer someone understand the content of my post than dismiss/ignore it.

Damn! Just as I was getting all excited and anxious to fly again because now I can carry my SCISSORS, why...

I find out TSA is NOT also granting us the Right to Peaceably Assemble, nor the Freedom of Religion yet! Shucks!

But they ARE going to manhandle you MORE! Wow! What's a person to think? More truth serum needs to be pumped into the collapsed vein of "Implied Consent", maybe?

Nah. You boys and girls go right on and sit quietly in the back of the bus as you're told. But now, at least, you can cuddle your scissors...

Just as frightening as TSA agents being authorized to identify travelers for the full-scale grope, is the info in the Washington Post article regarding the proposal for the CDC to require airlines to gather information on travelers:

"Just a week before the TSA's changes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced plans to collect detailed airline traveler information, such as e-mail addresses and even the names of travel companions. The CDC is attempting to maintain a passenger database so federal health officials can warn travelers of potential outbreaks of communicable diseases.

...

The CDC is requiring airlines to collect passengers' home addresses, emergency contact information and phone numbers, as well as information on traveling companions.

Airline industry executives say securing the passenger information while maintaining traveler privacy is a major undertaking and may even require some airlines to update their reservation systems, an investment that many airlines may have difficulty affording."

From a public health perspective, this makes some sense. In this time of H5N1 bird flu and SARS, tracking passengers, especially those flying from areas known to have substantial outbreaks of contagious diseases, may assist authorities in limiting outbreaks here in the U.S. Of course, this is just more information in government databases, a troubling development in terms of privacy. But with the specter of a flu pandemic against the backdrop of rapid transportation around the world, this information could be vital. Just my .02 worth.

Let me put it this way:
Deaths today in the USA from smoking-related illnesses: about 1,280
from bird flu and SARS combined: zero.

I'd rather that the CDC focus their attention on the real killers.

Then again, I have a degree in public health, so I'm used to trashing the CDC all the time.

I think the point is not the focus on H5N1, but rather that H5N1 or another as-yet unknown pathogen could mutuate to a form wherein it is easily transmissable from human to human. I'm perfectly willing to endure suspensions of rights or give way on privacy concerns when there is a real threat to public safety (health in this case).