dmercer
|
posted on October 27, 2001 12:01:27 AM new
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/101801/news.godfrey.shtml
|
outoftheblue
|
posted on October 27, 2001 12:19:42 AM new
Now I know for sure that the majority have lost their minds. Now people are being harassed for their choice of reading material. What's next, book burnings, witch hunts, ethnic cleansing?
[ edited by outoftheblue on Oct 27, 2001 12:22 AM ]
|
Zazzie
|
posted on October 27, 2001 12:23:52 AM new
What goes Siss Boom Baa????
An exploding Sheep.....
|
Shadowcat
|
posted on October 27, 2001 12:30:52 AM new
Wouldn't that be Baa Boom Siss then?
|
Zazzie
|
posted on October 27, 2001 12:37:55 AM new
details details 
|
Shadowcat
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:02:27 AM new
Our bedroom looks like a goat exploded...
|
bunnicula
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:09:19 AM new
Next we'll hear that the FBI is demanding to search through library records to find out who might be reading books that could be considered "dangerous"...
What happened to this guy is the sort of thing the public needs to fight against!
|
Zazzie
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:10:56 AM new
SssssKitty-----sounds kinky to me......
|
rachelcrisscross
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:13:41 AM new
bunnicula - they do that...
Know that for a fact...
A number of librarians in my family...
|
Zazzie
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:26:23 AM new
I see Senator McCarthy coming down the rode.......
|
bunnicula
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:38:20 AM new
rachelcrisscross: I am a librarian. The only way the FBI can legally look at library patron reading records is to come equipped with a search warrant.
I was working at the Margaret Herrick Library of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences when President Reagan was shot. Hinkley had used our library prior to the shooting & the FBI wanted to look at our records to see what he'd been looking at. They had to get a search warrant to do so. (He'd been looking at our files on Jodie Foster & the movie Taxi Driver).
Libraries and librarians that do otherwise are not a credit to the profession and certainly not upholding the ALA code of ethics.
|
rachelcrisscross
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:42:41 AM new
I know that.
Editing to add - My mother and mother-in-law are both librarians. They never hand anything over willingly. They refuse until they see a warrant...
[ edited by rachelcrisscross on Oct 27, 2001 01:50 AM ]
|
Shadowcat
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:58:40 AM new
Zazzie: I wish. Alas, it means amount of stuff does not equal available storage space. I see a de-junking in our future(if I can convince the tom to put aside his packrat tendencies for a while).
It's unbelievable what happened to that kid.
I fear it will happen even more, though. Common sense often loses out when people are afraid.
|
gravid
|
posted on October 27, 2001 05:14:23 AM new
Pretty soon you will need to worry about all sorts of things. You might be denied a job or your annual internal visa to go to Florida for the winter because you hang out at AW with known subversives.
The security guards are right. - People who read books ARE dangerous - they get all these IDEAS.
[ edited by gravid on Oct 27, 2001 05:15 AM ]
|
mark090
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:25:51 PM new
Not to worry, United Airlines won't be much longer for this world.
|
Antiquary
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:30:29 PM new
People who read books ARE dangerous - they get all these IDEAS.
Oh you can bet censorship is going to be a big issue. The new normalcy?
|
gravid
|
posted on October 27, 2001 01:57:44 PM new
Palidin Press that used to publish all sorts of books on explosives and sniping, false IDs, etc., already closed down due to changes in Federal law. The funny thing is they published some books on do-it-yourself explosives that were almost guaranteed to kill you if you followed the directions. Bad BAD advice.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on October 27, 2001 02:26:00 PM new
The airline may have overreacted. Of course we weren't there to see the behavior, or hear the words, of this young man either. Some airlines are cracking down too harshly, others are still allowing passengers to get through security with knives and a gun. Yesterday I heard of a woman's eyelash curler being taken from her.
Many years ago, I was behind a young man who was passing through the security gate when he joked about all this fuss being made about checking people for guns. He made some joke (I took it as a joke) and upon doing so, the airport security came over and asked him to come with them. They weren't taking what he said as a joke, obviously.
The need for extreme security, after the WTC events is still in it's infant stage. I believe we need a standardized systems (requirements) for all airports all over the country rather than leaving the decisions on what is, or is not, allowed to be brought aboard to be determined by each security person themselves.
I'd rather they error on the side of safety until the airlines get their act together.
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on October 27, 2001 02:48:20 PM new
I'd rather they error on the side of safety...
Considering the fact that knives and guns have still made it through security checkpoints, it sounds more like they erred on the side of idiocy here.
If it were up to me, I'd prefer to see more effort put toward eliminating the weapons, and just let people read whatever they please.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin, 1759
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Oct 27, 2001 02:49 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on October 27, 2001 02:57:42 PM new
MrPotatoHeadd - I believe I agreed with what you said in my post. But I always have a hard time when someone speaks of 'our liberties' then quotes someone who wasn't in this situation the US now finds itself it. I don't believe Ben F. was even thinking of three (four) airliners being plowed into two skyscrapers and our Pentagon (in his day). We are in our infancy in making new rules and regulations about this situation.
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on October 27, 2001 03:10:50 PM new
I don't believe Ben F. was even thinking of three (four) airliners being plowed into two skyscrapers and our Pentagon (in his day).
I'm sure he wasn't. He was probably more concerned with the possibility of one day living in a free country at that time.
We are in our infancy in making new rules and regulations about this situation.
Tht's all well and good, but there's no excuse for accepting excesses in the process. The guy was repeatedly hassled and denied boarding because he had a book about a fictional terrorist. How many passengers were allowed to board, who were carrying newspapers which had stores about real-life terrorists?
|
rachelcrisscross
|
posted on October 27, 2001 03:23:57 PM new
...nothing new under the sun...
- Ecclesiates...
Basically true - not very much anyway...
Ed. - new combinations possibly never even thought of or ever attempted, seem (to be?) available though...
...eff-ing edit...
Ed..ed...ed...dang it LindaK - you know darn well ol Ben wasn't just your average "somebody" either...and his thoughts certainly do have bearing on the current situation and on our rights...
Question: Is anyone else experiencing trouble with these pages loading?
[ edited by rachelcrisscross on Oct 27, 2001 04:30 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on October 27, 2001 04:30:40 PM new
Mr P - He was probably more concerned with the possibility of one day living in a free country at that time.
I understand and agree with you on 'excesses'. I still believe that if we, as a country, don't tighten up our lax security (in many areas) we won't have to worry about living in a free country. bin Laden and his likes will take care of that for us.
We are going to have excessive 'happenings' like this book incident and the eyelash curler, until we have unified rules of regulation. A decision hasn't even been made yet as to whom will be in charge (responsible for) the security checks. Thing like this take time.
Meanwhile there are going to be stories here and there that sound so unreasonable. I don't believe these new rules will include the banning of books similar to this young mans book.
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on October 27, 2001 04:43:09 PM new
I don't believe these new rules will include the banning of books similar to this young mans book.
As long as people are willing to speak up against this type of thing, probably not. If we just sit still and take whatever is forced on us, well... that is another story.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on October 27, 2001 04:50:24 PM new
There were no rules of regulations broken. The airline personnel simply didn't like the picture on the cover of his novel and acted from fear, not knowledge.
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
gravid
|
posted on October 27, 2001 05:14:47 PM new
There are rules and they are uniform but they are secret and if you complain that these minimum wage yahoos that should never be entrusted with the responsibility they have are being unreasonable you are told there can be no public discussion of it. It boils down to a lack of accountability.
When the rules are posted in a public place and you can sue if you are damaged by not following them then it will be reasonable.
Until then if you don't like it - do what I am doing - I won't fly. They won't get a single dollar from me as long as there are no good and uniform security measures in place and they treat me with RESPECT while enforcing them. There is no reason to treat the public with contempt except that that is what they wish to do given an excuse to pretend it is needed.
It is as false as police saying they need to be able to beat people up in order to enforce the law and make arrests. Hogwash. That is just the way some of them PREFER to do business because it is easier for them fly by the seat of their pants with whatever they think at the moment than using skill and intelligence gained through hard training.
|
DoctorBeetle
|
posted on October 27, 2001 07:16:20 PM new
In the interest of getting the details right I must point out that neither SISS BOOM BAA or BAA BOOM SISS could be correct. It seems logical that the Boom would definitely be last.
If the object causing the Boom had a fuse I would expect the Siss to precede the Boom. If our sheep heard the Siss, and knew what it meant, then most likely what occurred was SISS BAA BOOM.
Dr. Beetle
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Oct 27, 2001 07:17 PM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on October 27, 2001 07:32:32 PM new
Is that what they mean when they say they lowered the BOOM?
|
rachelcrisscross
|
posted on October 27, 2001 07:40:04 PM new
ba boom hisssssssss...
siss \'sis\ vi -ED/-ING/-ES [ME sissen, cissen, of imit. origin]: HISS
|
dmercer
|
posted on October 27, 2001 07:45:49 PM new
As a former professional pyrotechnician, I can state with all authority it would be:
BAAA during placement of the device.
SISS of the fuse.
BOOM!
No sheep where hurt during either my employment or the writing of this message...
|
