it's good to be the king . all hail king Bart, the one-th!

Actually, I have. Not in this thread, but in the �Who are we� thread. Maybe not the detail you would like, but life�s a rock. Take a few moments and look it over. I�ll have that plate of crow waiting for you when you get done.

As for challenges, bring one concerning the TSA that at my level I should know and I might take the time to address it.

Concerning my military service, 14 years is close. The answer to the other question is: VSI/SSB. Look it up. As for my education, well lets just say that I didn�t waste my time like most of my fellow military service members, I took classes all the time. I suppose if I wanted to I could have gotten more than the one degree I did (I certainly have the hours), most of the classes I took were not for a degree but because I was interested in the subject.

PT brought the questions about the validity of his legalistic claims upon himself. He was asked to be �very specific�, and failed. He used a shotgun to swat a fly, and missed the swarm at his back. To bad for him. His choice, not mine.

And�. As for the other various vapid concerns, I give them the weight they deserve.

I think PT provided more than enough credibility and proved his position.


There have been some very valid follow-up questions that you have conveniently side-stepped. You're free to do that, but at the peril of your own credibility (which, really isn't much right about now).

*****

Another vague answer as usual. You took classes, but you won't say which ones. You took enough to get more than one degree, but you didn't bother to get one.

And new tactic of not answering questions you find vapid, is just another way to avoid answering anything you can't back up with real facts.

As to your VSI/SSB the Rand Corporation had this to say:
LINK.
If you wanted to convince me your smarter than the rest of us you're not helping yourself. Hope I'm not being to vapid.

Bart in case you haven't noticed there are TSA members on the forum who get respect, like HVTSO Dean. Every time some of you make a claim that can not be substantiated with real facts just makes you that less credible.

On the contrary, I was very specific. You, however, either couldn't understand the responses, or simply believe that you know more about constitutional law than I do.

Believe me. You don't.

If you think the Constitution is a "shotgun," so be it. I'm not interested in writing, "A Child's Golden Wonder Book of Constitutional Law," though one clearly appears to be needed by TSA. Constitutional jurisprudence is arcane, which is why it takes a post-graduate degree and a licensing exam to practice it. You seem to expect it to be articulable in Romper Room, "Do bee/don't bee," fashion and, when it's explained to you and you don't understand the explanation, resort to insult. It's rather amusing to hear someone whose comprehension of these topics barely achieves a high school level criticize the education of others.

As I said, when you don't understand something you resort to insults. It's a transparent tactic and a primary reason you are not given the respect to which you think you are entitled. Note that you are one of a number of TSOs and STSOs who post here. Though, of course, disagreement with them is frequent, no one reacts to them as they react to you. You might want to think about that.

There are no details in that post other than you were trained to check ID's and provide perimeter security. Link If you can't be specific than you don't get to be a security expert.

Sorry, Bart. Nos. 1 and 2 are correct. 3 is not. Credibility doesn't mandate objectivity or neutrality. It only mandates accuracy and knowledge.

Think about this: FT has as its primary membership frequent fliers -- people who have to interact with TSA on a frequent basis. Most of the criticism of TSA comes from frequent fliers and those members of the media who are, themselves, frequent fliers. Most of the support for TSA comes from casual fliers -- those who fly once or twice a year, are terrified of becoming a 9/11 statistic, and are incapable of critically evaluating TSA's methods and procedures.

You see it from TSA's side. We see it from the frequent fliers' side. We are both "credible," with respect to our experience of the interaction. It does not mean that you are automatically wrong, but it also means that we are not, either.

I would add, as well, that with respect to constitutional jurisprudence, it is the rare non-lawyer who has any credibility and TSORon has proven the validity of this generalization.

Now, perhaps you can answer a question that I've put to TSORon, but he has simply evaded answering:

"How can TSA claim that commercial passenger planes are "secure" when each and every one of them in the U.S. has uninspected cargo and uninspected U.S. mail loaded into it?"

*****

I've noticed that myself. As long as he agree's with them they like him. When he dosent, well lets just say I have seen sharks in a feeding frenzy before.

Quite the contrary. He takes criticism well, and takes the time to read the posts and lets the criticism run off him like water.

Frankly, you and Bart take it personally. And that's the difference.

Really, share some examples. The difference is Dean is capable of answering direct questions, without going off topic, and he is even able to share a differing view without tangents or insults.

None of that you and Bart are capable of doing. Weak...

We all await your answers to the questions posted on the pages prior within this topic.

Ciao,
FH

Perhaps calling yourself a "Security Expert" might be a bit of a stretch.


http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_r.../MR859.ch2.pdf

"The Air Force also had a sizable reduction
to accomplish: 177,000. It primarily offered VSI/SSB to midgrade
(E4 and E5) enlisted members in less-critical skills and more
than 9 years of service."

"In contrast, Air Force members
were presented with probabilities of being involuntarily separated if
they opted not to take the benefit."

Crow?

Do you mean this post from page 19:
You say nothing of education here; you talk of "experiance" but no formal education. Is there another post we missed? Please share.

Do you have an associates from the CCAF? Is that your degree? The auto degree you get for doing a job in the USAF? Tell us there is more than that...

Remember, you brought it up...

Ciao,
FH