I didn't take offense to anything. You side tracked what you know I was saying with your bullshit. I can't help that. but I can run with it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
lowing, you took offense to the use of molest, not the OP. That's why I said you were the first one to bring it up. I was simply providing the definition to show you that 'molest' doesn't always mean sexually assaulting someone. Again, not my fault that you don't know there is more than one definition. In my opinion these types of exchanges just make you look ignorant, but if you feel like you are accomplishing something then more power to you.
Haha whatever man.
Have fun
Have fun
Oh, were we done with your dissection of the word molest? Ok well, then have a good day.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Haha whatever man.
Have fun
or you could fill a suitcase full of whatever Timothy McVeigh used and not need to film jack shit.Buckles wrote:
What's to stop people filming the locations of cameras? Locations of guard stations? Locations of security access doors? Filming someone entering their security codes?Hurricane2k9 wrote:
What do you mean of course he isn't allowed to film? Sounds like the same "logic" applied to people being told they can't film cops (but they can) or can't take photographs of federal buildings (which they can).Buckles wrote:
The woman is a douche and the man filming is a douche.
She is totally over-reacting, and the whole situation is more than likely staged.
The guy filming is obviously trying to be cool and clever, and failing miserably. "tell me which law says I cannot film here". He's in the security screening area of an airport. Of course he isn't allowed to film. I only watched 3 minutes of the first clip and clocked off because the guy was such a twat.
It's a massive security risk, and if you've ever worked in a location with proper security, such as an airport, or a bank or similar, you will know this.
EDIT:
Basically, the thread, subject and clips are inflammatory. If you are travelling through an airport, you know that there are security processes that need to be followed. Regardless of how well trained the staff are, what you think of their education or qualification or otherwise; they are there to do a job. If you are not happy to be party to those security procedures, then don't arrange to travel through an airport.
fertilizer and diesel fuel? all one suitcase is gonna do is make you smell bad . . .Hurricane2k9 wrote:
or you could fill a suitcase full of whatever Timothy McVeigh used and not need to film jack shit.
my mistake, i just saw whom i was responding to.
Last edited by burnzz (2011-06-03 16:27:34)
I think he just got schooled by Ken.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
actually you were the first one to bring it up. I was simply correcting you on the definition of molest as provided by the websters dictionary. Which by the way is a better source for definitions than you are.
do you actively troll or do you honestly think you are debating here? I tend to think you just like the sound of your keyboard.
Does this happen in all airports, or just Texas? I don't want some dude touching my crutch when I go through customs in LA in two months time,
Apples and oranges. McVeigh detonated a truck full of ammonia nitrate outside a building. That is worlds apart from smuggling explosives or munitions onto a commercial aircraft; which is, after all, what airport security is there to prevent.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
or you could fill a suitcase full of whatever Timothy McVeigh used and not need to film jack shit.
And yes, they don't catch terrorist after terrorist wearing bomb-vests or with a Sig Sauer wrapped around their schlong. This is because they know not to do these things because they will be caught at security. Yes, if a terrorist organisation was determined enough to hijack a flight, then they would probably be able to find a way to do it. But at least it isn't as easy as half of Al-Qaeda stuffing suitcases with explosives and automatic weapons and hopping on a trans-atlantic flight.
As for filming in the security area, the more quality information a person has about the area, the more they can plan to circumvent it. Yes you could just sketch this instead, but that would take longer and you would almost certainly get noticed and asked/told to stop too. I'm not saying that having a video of the security area and procedures would make it simple to circumvent them, but it would make any effort to try a lot easier.
Now, I know this reply is pretty much pointless because people who believe one way will argue their view, and people on the other side will argue theirs. And no-one really considers the other side impartially. Instead we degenerate into petty point-scoring and pedantry.
because its kinky and we <3
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Some hot chick touched ma willeh once.
2 mins later I was attained for carrying a bomb.
2 mins later I was attained for carrying a bomb.
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously. ♥
I personally don't see what all the fuss is about. I appreciate that the frisking isn't especially comfortable, but I don't think it's the end of the world either. The exception would obviously be rape victims and the like.
i think you like getting your junk touched by tsa dudes
Tu Stultus Es
It's only happened to me once. I'm not convinced anyone even uses those backscatter machines, I've never seen them in use.
I went through it at LAX for the first time in april. i look at it as them catching a free show
Tu Stultus Es
fuck 'em, right?ghettoperson wrote:
I personally don't see what all the fuss is about. I appreciate that the frisking isn't especially comfortable, but I don't think it's the end of the world either. The exception would obviously be rape victims and the like.
Fuck who? You always have the option of either backscatter or frisking, I don't see what the big deal is.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
fuck 'em, right?ghettoperson wrote:
I personally don't see what all the fuss is about. I appreciate that the frisking isn't especially comfortable, but I don't think it's the end of the world either. The exception would obviously be rape victims and the like.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6933
I'd be mad if some random walmart cop felt up my crotch.
you could cause plenty of destruction with a few determined terrorists with a few suitcases of explosives just inside the airport.Buckles wrote:
Apples and oranges. McVeigh detonated a truck full of ammonia nitrate outside a building. That is worlds apart from smuggling explosives or munitions onto a commercial aircraft; which is, after all, what airport security is there to prevent.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
or you could fill a suitcase full of whatever Timothy McVeigh used and not need to film jack shit.
And yes, they don't catch terrorist after terrorist wearing bomb-vests or with a Sig Sauer wrapped around their schlong. This is because they know not to do these things because they will be caught at security. Yes, if a terrorist organisation was determined enough to hijack a flight, then they would probably be able to find a way to do it. But at least it isn't as easy as half of Al-Qaeda stuffing suitcases with explosives and automatic weapons and hopping on a trans-atlantic flight.
As for filming in the security area, the more quality information a person has about the area, the more they can plan to circumvent it. Yes you could just sketch this instead, but that would take longer and you would almost certainly get noticed and asked/told to stop too. I'm not saying that having a video of the security area and procedures would make it simple to circumvent them, but it would make any effort to try a lot easier.
Now, I know this reply is pretty much pointless because people who believe one way will argue their view, and people on the other side will argue theirs. And no-one really considers the other side impartially. Instead we degenerate into petty point-scoring and pedantry.
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
you could cause plenty of destruction with a few determined terrorists with a few suitcases of explosives just inside the airport.Buckles wrote:
Apples and oranges. McVeigh detonated a truck full of ammonia nitrate outside a building. That is worlds apart from smuggling explosives or munitions onto a commercial aircraft; which is, after all, what airport security is there to prevent.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
or you could fill a suitcase full of whatever Timothy McVeigh used and not need to film jack shit.
And yes, they don't catch terrorist after terrorist wearing bomb-vests or with a Sig Sauer wrapped around their schlong. This is because they know not to do these things because they will be caught at security. Yes, if a terrorist organisation was determined enough to hijack a flight, then they would probably be able to find a way to do it. But at least it isn't as easy as half of Al-Qaeda stuffing suitcases with explosives and automatic weapons and hopping on a trans-atlantic flight.
As for filming in the security area, the more quality information a person has about the area, the more they can plan to circumvent it. Yes you could just sketch this instead, but that would take longer and you would almost certainly get noticed and asked/told to stop too. I'm not saying that having a video of the security area and procedures would make it simple to circumvent them, but it would make any effort to try a lot easier.
Now, I know this reply is pretty much pointless because people who believe one way will argue their view, and people on the other side will argue theirs. And no-one really considers the other side impartially. Instead we degenerate into petty point-scoring and pedantry.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Yes. You could. The airport security screening process is to stop these threats making it onto the aircraft itself.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
you could cause plenty of destruction with a few determined terrorists with a few suitcases of explosives just inside the airport.
no it's not. It's to make it look like there has been action taken after 9/11. It's more show than anything.
Buckles how many times have you been through the airport in the US post 9/11
Gee ya don't say. never saw that coming.Jaekus wrote:
I think he just got schooled by Ken.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
actually you were the first one to bring it up. I was simply correcting you on the definition of molest as provided by the websters dictionary. Which by the way is a better source for definitions than you are.
do you actively troll or do you honestly think you are debating here? I tend to think you just like the sound of your keyboard.
Not only do we not know if it was the first thing the did, but youtube is a very good medium to get your point across. After all, if they didn't post it to youtube, we wouldn't be discussing it would we?lowing wrote:
add to it, the first thing they do is run to youtube? Yeah thats what all women who are molested do, run straight to youtube.Buckles wrote:
The woman is a douche and the man filming is a douche.
She is totally over-reacting, and the whole situation is more than likely staged.
The guy filming is obviously trying to be cool and clever, and failing miserably. "tell me which law says I cannot film here". He's in the security screening area of an airport. Of course he isn't allowed to film. I only watched 3 minutes of the first clip and clocked off because the guy was such a twat.
Ok lets put it to something a little closer to home. Lets say, your wife was REALLY molested ( sexually assaulted f0r Ken and Jaekus), do you think posting it on youtube is going to be on her "to do" list?Nic wrote:
Not only do we not know if it was the first thing the did, but youtube is a very good medium to get your point across. After all, if they didn't post it to youtube, we wouldn't be discussing it would we?lowing wrote:
add to it, the first thing they do is run to youtube? Yeah thats what all women who are molested do, run straight to youtube.Buckles wrote:
The woman is a douche and the man filming is a douche.
She is totally over-reacting, and the whole situation is more than likely staged.
The guy filming is obviously trying to be cool and clever, and failing miserably. "tell me which law says I cannot film here". He's in the security screening area of an airport. Of course he isn't allowed to film. I only watched 3 minutes of the first clip and clocked off because the guy was such a twat.
how do you know it's the first thing on her "to-do" list?