2smrt4u

The difference between you and I is that I am not questioning your intelligence or education. What you're doing is ignoring the fact that I have an opinion by diverting attention to any perceived shortcoming you think I might have. Considering you know nothing about me or my education your statements are meritless. Hear say is not fact.

patriciajd

Maybe your choice of user name has somethingto do with the response you got. Just a thought.

TKarma

After reading the original post and some of the answers in this thread, I have to ask why would someone want to write an insult on a baggie unless they wanted attention and to prove a point? What point? With all the real and/or unreal problems regarding airport security, there was no need to do this. Going through airport security is not the time nor place to create a scene. This is serious stuff.

Writing on a baggie and claiming the first right amendment is a waste of time and is stuff of highschool hijinx. God forbid, with all the taunting and "in our face" antics of the "axis of evil" recently in New York, should the TSA not take an "in your face" insult on a baggie seriously. I say, let them search where they may in order to find that "one" idiot who wants to blow up everyone on a plane in the name of Allah, Ego, or just because they're nuts! I'd rather TSA err on the side of caution then to let the "real thing" go through just because they don't want that person to cause a scene. Besides, Mr. Baggie provoked it, and for what? To see what would happen, of course! OR, for his 15 minutes of fame on CNN.com?

Geez, I really don't want to go through Flight 93 again, do you?

Travellin' Fool

Um... unless i'm missing something here, the OP WANTED a reaction. He got a reaction, even though it was more than he expected.

GeoGirl

Do you mean "quite the contrary"? If so...dude, have you read the Constitution of the United States of America? Trust me, the right to free speech is there, without abridgement, and there's absolutely nothing in there that says "you have the right to free speech as long as a) it's in an appropriate forum, b) it's not considered rude, c) it doesn't inconvenience others or d) it doesn't annoy or irritate the government or its agents."

Here, read the First Amendment, for crying out loud:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Does that help?

GG

GUWonder

Speaking of critical thinking, your post includes a claim that is patently false. There is a possible way to walk up to security "armed" with this [plastic bag saying "Kip Hawley i an idiot"] and expect to board without incident. I've done it a few times. My wish was for the writing on the bag to be ignored (i.e., I didn't want attention, I just wanted to see if it would be "ignored" or not); and it has been ignored so far in that it has either been ignored outright and certainly gone without comment.

GUWonder

Could be taken a few ways, but commenting about 2smrt4u's user name doesn't do much to add to the topic.

2smrt4u

Somehow I agree that it is entirely possible. However, if I'd chosen one that meant the opposite, the responses would be even worse. So as to somehow suggest that my name is a reflection of who I am and what I stand for is precisely what's wrong with society in general. The mere mention of the word politician or elected official elicits nothing but negativity. If the TSA were not a government entity this conversation may not even be happening.

2smrt4u

Talking in circles again...

aircraft engineer

Much said here about the relative "power" of the "police wannabees" from TSA. For what it is worth - I think that TSA tries but has about as much effect as spitting into a hurricane. They tend to react with knee jerk response whenever stimulated (and that reaction flows from the top down - from those who would try to placate the flying public into believing that they are doing more than they actually are (not me, I know better) - a good show" as it were). TSA has a single purpose "keep bombs off planes" - no other (no matter how much somebody might wish to believe it). The reality for this is simple - with armored flight decks the pilot has to do nothing more than "land the aircraft" and let someone else take care of the situation. Yes, given worst case scenario some passengers might get "hurt" (gee, I COULD always wrap my arm around someone's neck and break their neck with little more effort than snapping a twig - but I digress. TSA "mentality" might try to declare "arms" proscript... NOT! - even THEY aren't THAT stupid... but some screeners I have seen in obscure US airports might be) So lets get down to reality in this. Some responders to this thread (from what I have read) are either paranoid delusionists or TSA "shills" - or both. The act of insulting the "boss" should bring nothing more than a snicker from the screener (I would assume that insulting the boss's sexual orientation would have not provoked a similar response). And just remember this - you enter a "police state" every time you fly.

I tend to say that we were lucky that Ried didn't shove his bomb up his anus.

I get to try the system again this week on an international flight series first to Korea then on to Thailand. Funny how the system is "different" in Asia - while "profiling" might be a no-no in the US, in Korea, Japan and Thailand for sure it is "standard" - they look at the "objects" (people) in terms of potential threats (and if you ever want to see SECURITY go deal with El Al).

Oh, and if anyone wonders, I AM an aircraft engineer (for real) - it's not just a "handle"

gfowler-ord-1k

I would love to be there. I suspect that the TSA does not want this to be in USA Today and CNN again and you will be handled with kid gloves (figuratively).

GUWonder

Did anyone here claim that someone is free to step on people just to get where they want to go? That could be classified as assault, a crime. Last I checked, the OP did not step on people (literally or figuratively) to get where he wanted to go. According to what's been presented in this thread, he certainly didn't step on your constitutional rights or those of anyone else here. To claim otherwise is to imagine that your constitutional rights are being infringed upon when they are not, and certainly not by someone outside the government.

aircraft engineer

TSA won't remember him - the chance of having the same screeners is remote and I doubt that the same writing will be on the "baggie"

GUWonder

[QUOTE=2smrt4u]The mere mention of the word politician or elected official elicits nothing but negativity.[/quote[

Too many exceptions to say that mere mention of those words elicits nothing but negativity.

Government entities can step on someone's constitutional rights in a way non-governmental persons cannot.

(If the TSA were not a government entity this conversation may not have happened, but even government outsourcing can create an agency relationship. )

2smrt4u

Thanks for today's lesson... already got an A in that class though.