I posted the below but it was rejected as well. Bolding placed by me on flyertalk.


I was curious why my U.S. Department of Commerce Identification has
been denied as valid identification prior to entering the sterile area
and submitting to an administrative search at BWI airport. USDOC
badges state that they are United States Government Identification
(and property of the US government), state my agency, name, photograph
with agency seal in the background, and includes digital security
features such as a smartchip.

Likewise I had to be photographed, fingerprinted, have a background
check by an Office of Personnel Management special investigator, fill
out SF-85P (http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF85P.pdf), provide
proof of citizenship, provide references, most recently an in person
interview, provide my credit and medical history, my official
transcripts from college etc in order to receive and maintain
possession of my official Federal Government identification, accept a
position of public trust, as well as enable me to enter U.S.
Department of Commerce buildings.

I am honestly quite confused why one Executive branch agency has full
faith and confidence in my identity after a far more exhaustive search
of my background and integrity and another will dismiss the expenses
incurred by the public to verify my identity as not being valid
identification.

Sorry, Superguy, I started a new thread about this very post before I read this.

Mods, please do whatever you want with my thread.

This was submitted, twice, for the column about the 'Black Diamond' test @ SLC w/o being posted:

Define 'limited'. Current carry-on policy allows each passenger 1 carry-on plus 1 'personal' item (i.e., laptop, purse, or backpack). If 'limited' refers to those who abide by those rules, then one can only assume that 'multiple' carry-ons refer to those who are not abiding by those rules & thus have more than the currently allowed number of carry-ons to bein with, which would seem to be a completely different problem. Or will 'multiple' now refer to those who are following the current carry-on policy & have 1 plus their personal item? If so, I can see huge numbers of those who would otherwise be classified as 'expert' being shunted off to the 'casual' line, which will then cause it's own slew of problems.

Good luck w/this one Kip!

What'd I do? :confused:

Did you have more than one thread open? I've caught myself beginning to post a response in a wrong thread 'cause I've got too many of them going at one time.

Following on with the theme of this thread
 

I notice many comments that might not have been posted when the blog first opened for business; could it be because so many FTers (as well as others) have complained here and in others places about certain comments being ignored?

I also notice several posts in the blog asking why the TSA is not responding to certain questions.

To me, the TSA blog seems to run on "bankers hours", or I guess "government employee hours"...give it a day or so, and your comment will be posted (maybe) :)

I don't know how the whole diamond thing is gonna work out...usually you can spot the "non expert" flyers (they usually have a "deer in the headlights" kind of look on their faces) and hopefully get them off to the green lane at least.

As for the questions TSA is not answering on their blog? Those are good, tough questions....probably won't be addressed!

Won't be addressed because the TSA can't give answers that have any credibility.

Several posters have addressed the Privacy Act. The TSA won't answer that one because they don't want the public in general to know that they have exempted themselves from having to abide by the act.

Agreed. Also, I think the TSA doesn't want the public in gereral to know that there even is such a thing as the Privacy Act. Lots of people don't....

There were 4 comments posted when I submitted mine; as of this morning, Sunday, there are 15. The rejection has nothing to do w/'bankers hours'.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post.

Your sin was committed in your first word: "Define" They can't do that so your post was rejected.

My guess is that the response has been overwhelming, so they have simply installed a "dirty word" program. The test would be to submit a response to a post with and without the "f" word in a sentence. If they are using a software fix, the post without the dirty word would get published.

In addition to the "Gripes & Grins" section of the blog not accepting comments, it would appear that the "Shoes" section has been shut down also, although perhaps only temporarily.

And still no critical questions answered.

My first rejected comment!
 

Posted in the Burbank/zip-lane thread. I submitted it more than 24 hours ago, and other posts have appeared since then in the thread, so I assume it was rejected. It's actually far less harsh than many other comments I've posted.

Interestingly enough, TSA today posted criteria for rejecting blog comments, none of which seem to cover the posts many FTers are reporting as rejected:

"Sensitive information (TSA folks explaining exact procedures that could aid someone wishing to do us harm)"

This is a universal out. Every scrap of information is a state secret to them.

Submitted twice, but never posted in the 'TSA & Piercings' thread.

"- "STOP THE YELLING. Ahem, stop the yelling." (Wish I could take credit for that one.) There's a concept in human relations called the "minimum effective response." It boils down to use the least level of response that gets the job done. IOW, don't yell when a simple explanation in a civil tone of voice will get the job done."
I have to comment about this. I just flew through Atlanta and several other airports the week before last, and yes, there was yelling. With the number of people there, and the noise level it would have been impossible for me and others to hear the instructions without the yelling. Maybe I'm just not sensitive, but it didn't bother me in the least.
Chance - EoS Blog Team.
********************************
Oh for heaven's sake, Chase-how many times, how many ways, & how many different people have brought this up just in the course of this blog's history? Goody for you that it doesn't bother you, but clearly, given the number of posts that mention this, it bothers many of your 'customers' & THAT is what counts!!!
Here's a suggestion for your idea factory-pick 1 moderately sized checkpoint & for 1 day forbid any & all shouting by anyone from the TSA. Get some independent observers to monitor the screeners behavior & volume & give them the authority to tell any screener who gets to loud to tone it down (I'd bet you could find a few volunteers over on FlyerTalk-heck, pick my home airport & I'll be there!) & then watch how much the noise level &, more importantly, stress level @ the checkpoint comes down. Here's a funny thing about people-if they walk into a quiet area, they are likely to be quiet themselves (think of a church or doctor's waiting room). What have you got to lose? Being proven wrong?