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.
Hasn't this discussion happened on here about three times a year for the past couple of years?
That first video is pretty stupid. But I still tend to side with the people who cry foul at the TSA's ever-expanding authority.
The TSA has been proven to be relatively ineffective despite all of their attempts at incorporating "enhanced" technology and techniques...you can find numerous examples of people documenting their successful sneaking of contraband past them in recent years. Hence the common perception that they employ a bunch of mental midgets, whom they throw a guidebook and some gadgetry at and then call it security.
I hope the US incorporates a cross-country maglev rail system in the not-too-distant future, but hoping that security for that would be any better is probably naive on my part...
What we NEED are some fucking gurkhas to keep that shit safe.
That first video is pretty stupid. But I still tend to side with the people who cry foul at the TSA's ever-expanding authority.
The TSA has been proven to be relatively ineffective despite all of their attempts at incorporating "enhanced" technology and techniques...you can find numerous examples of people documenting their successful sneaking of contraband past them in recent years. Hence the common perception that they employ a bunch of mental midgets, whom they throw a guidebook and some gadgetry at and then call it security.
I hope the US incorporates a cross-country maglev rail system in the not-too-distant future, but hoping that security for that would be any better is probably naive on my part...
What we NEED are some fucking gurkhas to keep that shit safe.
You can't have them-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
Hasn't this discussion happened on here about three times a year for the past couple of years?
That first video is pretty stupid. But I still tend to side with the people who cry foul at the TSA's ever-expanding authority.
The TSA has been proven to be relatively ineffective despite all of their attempts at incorporating "enhanced" technology and techniques...you can find numerous examples of people documenting their successful sneaking of contraband past them in recent years. Hence the common perception that they employ a bunch of mental midgets, whom they throw a guidebook and some gadgetry at and then call it security.
I hope the US incorporates a cross-country maglev rail system in the not-too-distant future, but hoping that security for that would be any better is probably naive on my part...
What we NEED are some fucking gurkhas to keep that shit safe.
I agree with what you said about the TSA, but on topic of this being molestation, I don't think so.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
Hasn't this discussion happened on here about three times a year for the past couple of years?
That first video is pretty stupid. But I still tend to side with the people who cry foul at the TSA's ever-expanding authority.
The TSA has been proven to be relatively ineffective despite all of their attempts at incorporating "enhanced" technology and techniques...you can find numerous examples of people documenting their successful sneaking of contraband past them in recent years. Hence the common perception that they employ a bunch of mental midgets, whom they throw a guidebook and some gadgetry at and then call it security.
I hope the US incorporates a cross-country maglev rail system in the not-too-distant future, but hoping that security for that would be any better is probably naive on my part...
What we NEED are some fucking gurkhas to keep that shit safe.
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.
Because nobody will boycott the airports.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Why do we allow these rent-a-cops to molest airline passengers?
and i'm telling you to look up the definition for the word 'molest'.lowing wrote:
You are right adults can be molested as well, never said otherwise. I said calling getting screened at the airport molestation cheapens the word.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
actually molest/molested doesn't just mean fingering a little girl. So yes, that action could be construed as molestation. REALLY
You think that is what happened here? 2 fat women molested another fat woman while standing in line to get on a fuckin plane. Thats what happened?
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.
Last edited by Buckles (2011-06-03 13:54:38)
oh no, they know the locations of cameras and access doors! I'm sure it'd be ok to go in there and take notes, maybe draw a little sketch on the locations, but heaven forbid they FILM IT!
YOU don't TELL me shit Ken, I asked you a simple question, you think molestation is what really happened in the OP with the fat woman and the 2 fat TSA women, while it was being filmed so it could be thrown on youtube?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
and i'm telling you to look up the definition for the word 'molest'.lowing wrote:
You are right adults can be molested as well, never said otherwise. I said calling getting screened at the airport molestation cheapens the word.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
actually molest/molested doesn't just mean fingering a little girl. So yes, that action could be construed as molestation. REALLY
You think that is what happened here? 2 fat women molested another fat woman while standing in line to get on a fuckin plane. Thats what happened?
hahahaha you're a funny dude. I'll help you out this time, lowing.
mo·lest
/məˈlɛst/ Show Spelled[muh-lest] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2.to make indecent sexual advances to.
3.to assault sexually.
Use molest in a Sentence
See images of molest
Search molest on the Web
Origin:
1325–75; Middle English molesten < Latin molestāre to irk, derivative of molestus irksome; compare mōlēs mass, burden, trouble
yes, lowing, it looks like she was molested.
mo·lest
/məˈlɛst/ Show Spelled[muh-lest] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2.to make indecent sexual advances to.
3.to assault sexually.
Use molest in a Sentence
See images of molest
Search molest on the Web
Origin:
1325–75; Middle English molesten < Latin molestāre to irk, derivative of molestus irksome; compare mōlēs mass, burden, trouble
yes, lowing, it looks like she was molested.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
hahahaha you're a funny dude. I'll help you out this time, lowing.
mo·lest
/məˈlɛst/ Show Spelled[muh-lest] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2.to make indecent sexual advances to.
3.to assault sexually.
Use molest in a Sentence
See images of molest
Search molest on the Web
Origin:
1325–75; Middle English molesten < Latin molestāre to irk, derivative of molestus irksome; compare mōlēs mass, burden, trouble
yes, lowing, it looks like she was molested.
so you are really going to argue that? Ok, your right, it doesn't cheapen the word for those that really are molested. Excuse me while I go call an attorney, someone talked in a movie theater and it molested me.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
hahahaha you're a funny dude. I'll help you out this time, lowing.
mo·lest
/məˈlɛst/ Show Spelled[muh-lest] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2.to make indecent sexual advances to.
3.to assault sexually.
Use molest in a Sentence
See images of molest
Search molest on the Web
Origin:
1325–75; Middle English molesten < Latin molestāre to irk, derivative of molestus irksome; compare mōlēs mass, burden, trouble
yes, lowing, it looks like she was molested.
lowing wrote:
I am betting burnzz knows a few defense lawyers.
not my fault that you don't know there is more than one definition for 'molest'.
No no Ken, it is my fault for assuming we were talking about the commonly accepted association of the word. I also should not have assumed that you knew the context of my post was in that commonly associated version of the word.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
not my fault that you don't know there is more than one definition for 'molest'.
Now please, stop molesting me further.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-03 14:17:22)
i don't associate molest with only meaning to sexually assault someone. That's why I had to make the clarification. Unfortunately it took me 3 posts more than I wanted to get that point across to you.
Who cares if it's thrown on youtube? It doesn't change the well documented fact that we are put through horrendous and unnecessary screening procedures. Let's not take away from the issue - that these procedures likely will do nothing to change the threat of terrorism. The focus should be on biological indicators, not checking my crotch and shoes to see if I have bombs stuffed down my pants. It's been spelled out in many posts here (on this website) the correct way to go about screening for terrorists. What we are doing now is just a dog and pony show to provide a false sense of security.
But please, continue griping about the use of the word "molest" in this discussion, because that's surely the crux of this argument.
Who cares if it's thrown on youtube? It doesn't change the well documented fact that we are put through horrendous and unnecessary screening procedures. Let's not take away from the issue - that these procedures likely will do nothing to change the threat of terrorism. The focus should be on biological indicators, not checking my crotch and shoes to see if I have bombs stuffed down my pants. It's been spelled out in many posts here (on this website) the correct way to go about screening for terrorists. What we are doing now is just a dog and pony show to provide a false sense of security.
But please, continue griping about the use of the word "molest" in this discussion, because that's surely the crux of this argument.
No Ken, I was not gripping about the word molest. You were. Everyone but you accepted it for face value. That this woman was screaming that she was being sexually assaulted and not merely "ANNOYED" or "BOTHERED".KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i don't associate molest with only meaning to sexually assault someone. That's why I had to make the clarification. Unfortunately it took me 3 posts more than I wanted to get that point across to you.
Who cares if it's thrown on youtube? It doesn't change the well documented fact that we are put through horrendous and unnecessary screening procedures. Let's not take away from the issue - that these procedures likely will do nothing to change the threat of terrorism. The focus should be on biological indicators, not checking my crotch and shoes to see if I have bombs stuffed down my pants. It's been spelled out in many posts here (on this website) the correct way to go about screening for terrorists. What we are doing now is just a dog and pony show to provide a false sense of security.
But please, continue griping about the use of the word "molest" in this discussion, because that's surely the crux of this argument.
TSA effectiveness is another issue. The issue in the OP was this woman claiming she was assaulted. It is also kinds sorta in the title of the thread. Your a mod, if you want to talk about security policy and effectiveness at the airport use your magical mod powers and change the title in the OP.
Now again, please, go molest someone else.
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.
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.
nooooooo, the OP was the first one to bring it up Ken and in the context of the OP what I said was accurate.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.
no, I am not debating now, I am addressing your molestation of me instead.
christ it wasnt funny or witty the first or second time you said it.
Tu Stultus Es
Im sorry eleven bravo, was I molesting you?eleven bravo wrote:
christ it wasnt funny or witty the first or second time you said it.
you need to go to back to comedy school
Tu Stultus Es
wasn't trying to be funny, I was molesting.eleven bravo wrote:
you need to go to back to comedy school
Yeah I think it is a pretty stupid use of the word as well in this context. Which is why I only used it in the context as it was meant in the OP.
Don't like it? Talk to Ken.
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.