If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mercury News)   Charges against dude with the suspicious watch at the airport dropped. With a picture of the suspicious watch. Frankly, this guy was asking for trouble (especially if he expected TSA to be understanding and get his hipster irony)   (mercurynews.com) divider line 113
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

21820 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2012 at 10:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 10:59:03 AM  
Attention whore got attention.
 
2012-11-20 10:59:44 AM  
He misses the plane, They swipe it for explosives, they turn him loose in time for the next plane.
 
2012-11-20 11:00:06 AM  
Wow you have to be pretty stupid to try and bring that through an airport. Whether the watch is harmless or not, the chances are pretty high that some security officer for whatever reason - ignorance, undue caution, discretion, boredom, shiatzngigglez etc. will decide to arrest the person wearing it. It just a stupid thing to do and the outcome is predictable. At best the person misses their flight, at worst they get thrown in jail and face charges.
 
2012-11-20 11:00:31 AM  
www.examiner.com    
 
"It looked like a bum."
 
 
2012-11-20 11:02:32 AM  

LesterB: Smackledorfer: all the TSA agents are, a very large percentage of which are ex-military.

[citation needed.png]


Link

Sometimes things can be found with a very simple googling. Also, fyi, many government jobs offer hiring preference for ex-military, so it is a good bet in any given government field that there will be more ex-military.
 
2012-11-20 11:03:06 AM  
I have to be critical of the TSA on this one.

If they cannot recognize what is -not- a bomb, how can it be expected of them to recognize what -is- a bomb? The watch in the picture is clearly separate from the strap, and the electrical fuses have their markings on them, it could be argued this is more of a fantasy time machine gizmo that any sort of explosive device, and I do not think it unreasonable that the people charged with protecting our skies should be trained to recognize that.
 
2012-11-20 11:03:26 AM  

LesterB: <csb>

Once upon a time (long before 2011) I tried to go through airport security with one of these in my hand:


Yeah, pre-9/11 I'd have had no concerns bringing a BOB through an airport, and did more than once. After 9/11? I started just sending that sort of stuff UPS to the site ahead of time.
 
2012-11-20 11:09:35 AM  

Smackledorfer: LesterB: Smackledorfer: all the TSA agents are, a very large percentage of which are ex-military.

[citation needed.png]

Link

Sometimes things can be found with a very simple googling. Also, fyi, many government jobs offer hiring preference for ex-military, so it is a good bet in any given government field that there will be more ex-military.


From your link: Nearly 25 percent of the TSA workforce is a veteran or active duty reserve member of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Are you saying that 25% is a very large percentage?
 
2012-11-20 11:10:33 AM  

syberpud: No they aren't - like all agencies vets are preference hires, but they don't make up "a very large percentage". Most are right off the street like a lot of Federal hires only give less training than other Fed law enforcement.


I consider 25% to be very large.

syberpud: /fun little fact: TSA employees get an annual uniform allowance that is greater than the lifetime allowance for a Marine Lieutenant. They are expected to do more dry cleaning at retail prices of dress shirts I guess, but $446/year? I don't wear suits or dress shirts every day but that seems excessive.


Once again a farker fails completely at seeing the big picture. That uniform allowance is a buck fifty a day. The TSA employees are making a good 15 bucks an hour. The backscatters cost gobs and gobs of money. But it is totally that 446 bucks that is the issue here.

As far as comparison to military employees, can anyone in the military tell me if they are expected to buy and pay for their uniforms out of pocket? If not, then it really isn't accurate at all to compare the 446 of a TSA agent (which could certainly, and probably is, set above what they require) to the provided gear and uniforms to those in the military. I honestly have no idea how military uniforms are budgeted. A quick googling suggests that they do in fact get uniform allowances in the military, and that the allowances are based around the needs of the various positions.
 
2012-11-20 11:12:08 AM  

Ernie the Fork: Attention whore got attention.


The earlier article also mentioned that his shoes had been altered with additional souls and (I think) voids... He was definitely attempting to draw attention whether or not he was detained.
 
2012-11-20 11:12:37 AM  

KaiC: Both sides at fault here.

Guy for being dumb enough to wear that thing to the airport and think he would attract attention.

Airport for having him hauled off to jail requiring him to post $150,000 in bail to get out after the airport bomb squad checked the watch and cleared it.


They didn't haul him off because it was attached to a bomb (they knew it wasn't). They hauled him off to do a background and associations check as this could have very easily been a security weakness probe. It's due dilligence and not overreacting in the slightest. The guy was a complete and utter dumbass to wear something like that through a security checkpoint.
 
2012-11-20 11:16:41 AM  

Draskuul: LesterB: <csb>Yeah, pre-9/11 I'd have had no concerns bringing a BOB through an airport, and did more than once. After 9/11? I started just sending that sort of stuff UPS to the site ahead of time.


You still have to be careful when you greet Jack at the airport.

And the dude has sold several of them? Really? I thought Folk Art was crap. That thing makes Folk Art look like it belongs in the Louvre.

I wonder where the $15,000 to pay Dog came from? That was an expensive lesson...

Besides, anybody who was serious about creating real mischief wouldn't wear something that obnoxious.
 
2012-11-20 11:16:45 AM  

Smackledorfer: LesterB: Smackledorfer: all the TSA agents are, a very large percentage of which are ex-military.

[citation needed.png]

Link

Sometimes things can be found with a very simple googling. Also, fyi, many government jobs offer hiring preference for ex-military, so it is a good bet in any given government field that there will be more ex-military.


Your link does not mention any former military majority. And ex-military is not the only hiring preference for government service. Additional points are awarded for disabilities, etc.
 
2012-11-20 11:17:00 AM  

GoGoGadgetLiver: They didn't haul him off because it was attached to a bomb (they knew it wasn't). They hauled him off to do a background and associations check as this could have very easily been a security weakness probe. It's due dilligence and not overreacting in the slightest. The guy was a complete and utter dumbass to wear something like that through a security checkpoint.


Look at what you're saying here. You are claiming that a $150K bond is a necessary component of a background and associations check. You must feel stupid.
 
2012-11-20 11:20:51 AM  

Smackledorfer: syberpud: No they aren't - like all agencies vets are preference hires, but they don't make up "a very large percentage". Most are right off the street like a lot of Federal hires only give less training than other Fed law enforcement.

I consider 25% to be very large.

syberpud: /fun little fact: TSA employees get an annual uniform allowance that is greater than the lifetime allowance for a Marine Lieutenant. They are expected to do more dry cleaning at retail prices of dress shirts I guess, but $446/year? I don't wear suits or dress shirts every day but that seems excessive.

Once again a farker fails completely at seeing the big picture. That uniform allowance is a buck fifty a day. The TSA employees are making a good 15 bucks an hour. The backscatters cost gobs and gobs of money. But it is totally that 446 bucks that is the issue here.

As far as comparison to military employees, can anyone in the military tell me if they are expected to buy and pay for their uniforms out of pocket? If not, then it really isn't accurate at all to compare the 446 of a TSA agent (which could certainly, and probably is, set above what they require) to the provided gear and uniforms to those in the military. I honestly have no idea how military uniforms are budgeted. A quick googling suggests that they do in fact get uniform allowances in the military, and that the allowances are based around the needs of the various positions.


Yes. Why else do you think there is a monetary allowance for it?
 
2012-11-20 11:21:16 AM  
I was all set to be pro consumer, anti tsa. But look at the thing! I mean, come on. The guy wore it to push the TSA's buttons.
 
2012-11-20 11:22:10 AM  

The Larch: Are you saying that 25% is a very large percentage?


Yes. I will happily admit that this is a subjective term. 9% of the population has served, or is active in, the military. So I would definitely say 25% of a particular career is a pretty damn significant difference.

In any event, whether or not you agree with the application of the phrase "very large", I still find it to pretty amusing that we see so many threads and such a large portion of the population with a borderline worship of military, or at least a general belief that they must be respected, while we see a similar generalization of all TSA agents and filthy inhuman scum deserving of nothing but derision. My point stands.


And despite my already having said it: I think the TSA is a whole serves little purpose beyond security theater. I have simply found myself constantly surprised at the amount of hate directed at the employees or even TSA itself. There are much much bigger fish to fry and much bigger things to whine about, but it would seem the average joe wasn't bothered by excessive authoritarian bullshiat until it cost him 10 minutes at the airport. We have a country with a pretty significant level of support for torture and war, but along comes an inconvenience at the airport and WOAH its suddenly time to speak out? Ridiculous.
 
2012-11-20 11:23:20 AM  

eltejon: Your link does not mention any former military majority.


Ya, it probably wouldn't, what with me never claiming it was a majority.
 
2012-11-20 11:23:52 AM  
TSA Agents couldn't get him to Tock.
 
2012-11-20 11:24:18 AM  

Smackledorfer: syberpud: No they aren't - like all agencies vets are preference hires, but they don't make up "a very large percentage". Most are right off the street like a lot of Federal hires only give less training than other Fed law enforcement.

I consider 25% to be very large.


Ok, everyone has a different scale. I couldn't find the exact number for TSA, but for the first few quarters of FY11 19.2% of the DHS workforce were vets (includes sub-agencies).


syberpud: /fun little fact: TSA employees get an annual uniform allowance that is greater than the lifetime allowance for a Marine Lieutenant. They are expected to do more dry cleaning at retail prices of dress shirts I guess, but $446/year? I don't wear suits or dress shirts every day but that seems excessive.

Once again a farker fails completely at seeing the big picture. That uniform allowance is a buck fifty a day. The TSA employees are making a good 15 bucks an hour. The backscatters cost gobs and gobs of money. But it is totally that 446 bucks that is the issue here.


Didn't say it should be the key point about the TSA, just a fun fact (apparently we have different definitions of fun). YMMV should have been added.


As far as comparison to military employees, can anyone in the military tell me if they are expected to buy and pay for their uniforms out of pocket? If not, then it really isn't accurate at all to compare the 446 of a TSA agent (which could certainly, and probably is, set above what they require) to the provided gear and uniforms to those in the military. I honestly have no idea how military uniforms are budgeted. A quick googling suggests that they do in fact get uniform allowances in the military, and that the allowances are based around the needs of the various positions.



Not in the military, but this ref seems up to date (2011): http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/allowances/clothing-all o wances.html  Note that the allowance is higher for women and as any woman will tell you, prices for cleaning/alterations are always more expensive for women than men so at least they get some extra money to cover it.
 
2012-11-20 11:27:08 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: Yes. Why else do you think there is a monetary allowance for it?


Well, assuming the TSA has the same situation as other non-military federal agents (such as CBP), the TSA agents don't get paid cash and then turn around and spend that cash on uniforms. They get an account they can spend on uniforms and other gear, and what they don't spend goes away at the end of the year.

If you paid any attention to my post you'd realize I'm asking for someone with military experience to explain how it works for them. It is a dishonest apples to oranges comparison to say that the yearly amount a TSA agent is given is more than the lifetime amount of a marine if the two systems are set up differently.
 
2012-11-20 11:28:17 AM  

vudukungfu: archichris: , I can hijack a plane with a fake bomb. No fake bombs allowed.

No fake cops ate the airports, then.
Deal.


OM NOM NOM?
 
2012-11-20 11:32:10 AM  
I'm so glad the TSA is standing strong and protecting us against the hipster Muslim extremists and their cartoonish, gauche fashion accessories.

I tip my hat to thee, brave defenders of our Union.

thumbs.newschoolers.com
 
2012-11-20 11:36:52 AM  
McGann was arrested at about 7:45 p.m. Thursday after airport security found him wearing a watch that looked like a timing device for an explosive, Alameda County sheriff's Sgt. J.D. Nelson said.


Isn't that the bomb squad Sgt. from Mythbusters?
 
2012-11-20 11:39:06 AM  

archichris: ChaoticLimbs: It's a free country, until you decide to do something different than what everyone else is doing. Then it VERY quickly stops being a free country. Like, if you're gay it doesn't feel like a free country, or if you're a swinger, or if you like to dress strangely, or have a mohawk, or are brown-skinned. In any of those cases, it doesn't feel very free at all. But it's a free country.

Freedom to do what pleases the government and makes everyone around you comfortable is granted in even the most oppressive gulags in the world. The defining "free" moment is when you can zig while everyone else zags, and nobody is harmed, not even you.

Lemme pose this for you...I make a piece of art that looks like a suicide vest, I certify it with the tsa that it is harmless and they let me on a plane, then I jump up and show everyone on the plane in mid air and start screaming that I am a terrorist and I am going to blow up the plane if they dont change course to syria........

If it looks dangerous it can be used to intimidate or control a flight crew.

If I were going to rob a bookie because there was this huge diamond in town.......


Make sure your gun doesn't say 'REPLICA' down the side... Then I won't have to show you mine that says 'DESERT EAGLE .50'?
 
2012-11-20 11:40:30 AM  
BIL was seeing me off in Corpus Christi and they wouldn't let me take my torch lighter past security. I handed it to him and told him to mail it to me. We then BOTH proceeded to the gate, stopped at the bar for a beer and he gave it back to me.

/pre TSA
//CSB
 
2012-11-20 11:43:30 AM  

Smackledorfer: In any event, whether or not you agree with the application of the phrase "very large", I still find it to pretty amusing that we see so many threads and such a large portion of the population with a borderline worship of military, or at least a general belief that they must be respected, while we see a similar generalization of all TSA agents and filthy inhuman scum deserving of nothing but derision. My point stands.


Yes. A very large percentage of Americans -- maybe even 25% -- think that veterans who served deserve our respect for the sacrifice that they made, and were willing to make, for the country.

And, a very large percentage of Americans -- maybe even 25% -- think that the TSA is a joke organization with terrible hiring practices, abysmal training, and a pitifully sad organizational purpose.

And, a very large percentage of Americans -- maybe even 25% -- might believe both of those things at the same time.

Now, please tell how, specifically, that very large percentage of Americans -- maybe even 25% -- is wrong.

But perhaps you're one of those people who think that only one of these two statements can be true at the same time: "OJ Simpson was a great football player" and "OJ Simpson is a felon and a murderer and a terrible human being."
 
2012-11-20 11:49:49 AM  
That "watch" is neither art nor steampunk, merely a steaming pile.
www.geeky-gadgets.com 

hackedgadgets.com
 
2012-11-20 11:49:50 AM  

BoboRod: BIL was seeing me off in Corpus Christi and they wouldn't let me take my torch lighter past security. I handed it to him and told him to mail it to me. We then BOTH proceeded to the gate, stopped at the bar for a beer and he gave it back to me.

/pre TSA
//CSB


Hell, I've walked right through the TSA checks with a pocket knife. It was an accident, of course, and I put it in my checked luggage to go back. But I still carried a 3 inch knife onto a plane around the same time they were taking my grandmother's sewing needles away.
 
2012-11-20 11:52:16 AM  

The Larch: Smackledorfer: In any event, whether or not you agree with the application of the phrase "very large", I still find it to pretty amusing that we see so many threads and such a large portion of the population with a borderline worship of military, or at least a general belief that they must be respected, while we see a similar generalization of all TSA agents and filthy inhuman scum deserving of nothing but derision. My point stands.

Yes. A very large percentage of Americans -- maybe even 25% -- think that veterans who served deserve our respect for the sacrifice that they made, and were willing to make, for the country.

And, a very large percentage of Americans -- maybe even 25% -- think that the TSA is a joke organization with terrible hiring practices, abysmal training, and a pitifully sad organizational purpose.

And, a very large percentage of Americans -- maybe even 25% -- might believe both of those things at the same time.

Now, please tell how, specifically, that very large percentage of Americans -- maybe even 25% -- is wrong.

But perhaps you're one of those people who think that only one of these two statements can be true at the same time: "OJ Simpson was a great football player" and "OJ Simpson is a felon and a murderer and a terrible human being."


Convenient that you redefined the groups I was mocking so that their overlap no longer involved contradiction. There is no need to tell you how the two groups you mention are wrong, as they are not the two groups I was referring to. I know thinking is hard, but here is the comment that started all this:

Smackledorfer: Also I enjoy the fact that we have a thread going about how much respect soldiers deserve and another thread going on about how retarded all the TSA agents are, a very large percentage of which are ex-military. Its a rather amusing inconsistency.


You are welcome to your own interpretation of "large percentage" and you are certainly welcome to disagree with me that the two groups I refer to exist or, if they do exist, overlap, but it is dishonesty or stupidity to make up new groups and present them back to me as though they were the ones I was talking about.
 
2012-11-20 11:59:55 AM  
"Looked like a timing device for an explosive"

According to who, the prop department at MGM Studios?

Seriously, that doesn't look like an "explosive device." It looks like a shiatty watch with random junk glued to it.
 
2012-11-20 12:00:24 PM  
While I don't think the TSA was out of line to question this watch, I have had to spend an inordinate amount of time convincing them that my plain old pocketwatch is not an implement of destruction.
 
2012-11-20 12:04:39 PM  

Smackledorfer: Convenient that you redefined the groups I was mocking so that their overlap no longer involved contradiction. There is no need to tell you how the two groups you mention are wrong, as they are not the two groups I was referring to. I know thinking is hard, but here is the comment that started all this:

Smackledorfer: Also I enjoy the fact that we have a thread going about how much respect soldiers deserve and another thread going on about how retarded all the TSA agents are, a very large percentage of which are ex-military. Its a rather amusing inconsistency


Can you find specific posts from specific people where a person has said in one thread that every veteran deserves our respect for every aspect of their lives, and then the very same person says in a different thread that every single person working for the TSA does not deserve any respect for any aspect of their lives?

C'mon -- let's see you find even one person making both of those posts. Find even one. You don't even have to find a group. Just one.

Let me know when you find the person who holds both of those views simultaneously, and I will go laugh at him and call him silly names.
 
2012-11-20 12:07:42 PM  
Nelson said even if McGann truly is innocent and didn't intend to harm anyone, he still thinks that McGann showed "a lack of good judgment" and "was not being very smart" in traveling with the watch.

Well then, we're all going to Hell.
 
2012-11-20 12:12:15 PM  

Smackledorfer: As far as comparison to military employees, can anyone in the military tell me if they are expected to buy and pay for their uniforms out of pocket? If not, then it really isn't accurate at all to compare the 446 of a TSA agent (which could certainly, and probably is, set above what they require) to the provided gear and uniforms to those in the military. I honestly have no idea how military uniforms are budgeted. A quick googling suggests that they do in fact get uniform allowances in the military, and that the allowances are based around the needs of the various positions.


Enlisted get them issued for free. Active duty enlisted get an annual allowance to maintain and replace worn out uniforms after their initial issue (Reserve/Guard are on their own on this and have to replace things out of pocket)

Officers are expected to buy their own from the beginning, and I'm not quite sure if they get the same annual uniform allowance if they are on active duty.
 
2012-11-20 12:17:25 PM  
I haven't flown since the TSA started squeezing people's genitalia in lieu of doing something useful with their miserable amoral lives; last time I flew was in 2006, and the TSA agent made me remove the inch-long barrette from my hair because Zod only knows how many nukes I might've been smuggling in the one-one-hundredth of an inch of space between said barrette and my scalp.

TSA: protecting America from butterfly-shaped hairclips since 2006.
 
2012-11-20 12:20:28 PM  

The Larch: Smackledorfer: Convenient that you redefined the groups I was mocking so that their overlap no longer involved contradiction. There is no need to tell you how the two groups you mention are wrong, as they are not the two groups I was referring to. I know thinking is hard, but here is the comment that started all this:

Smackledorfer: Also I enjoy the fact that we have a thread going about how much respect soldiers deserve and another thread going on about how retarded all the TSA agents are, a very large percentage of which are ex-military. Its a rather amusing inconsistency

Can you find specific posts from specific people where a person has said in one thread that every veteran deserves our respect for every aspect of their lives, and then the very same person says in a different thread that every single person working for the TSA does not deserve any respect for any aspect of their lives?

C'mon -- let's see you find even one person making both of those posts. Find even one. You don't even have to find a group. Just one.

Let me know when you find the person who holds both of those views simultaneously, and I will go laugh at him and call him silly names.


/plonk
 
2012-11-20 12:21:12 PM  

Smackledorfer: eltejon: Your link does not mention any former military majority.

Ya, it probably wouldn't, what with me never claiming it was a majority.


Mia culpa on that point. I translated "very large percentage" too quickly.
 
2012-11-20 12:24:26 PM  

ChaoticLimbs: Oh, and if it's "stupid" to wear a non-dangerous watch which doesn't appear dangerous except to the most undereducated buffoons known to man, then contained within the statement that it is stupid is the tacit admission that policing is done by fools, and that the rules are arbitrary, and that there is so much grey area around the rules that they aren't rules at all, at least, not the kind that protect anyone from anything. You would have to admit that such a society would be adequately described by the following : " That which is not prohibited is mandatory, and for all exceptions there is a permit, license, or other form of controls."

If we prohibit dangerous items, items which are crafted to appear dangerous, OR items that the policeman doesn't understand, shouldn't we endeavor to choose policemen who are understanding of the fundamentals of our society? If they are to judge harmless electronic devices from dangerous ones, shouldn't they understand that fuses are not incendiaries or explosives? Shouldn't they know that toggle switches are not dangerous? Why do we tolerate being policed by undereducated thugs and then call this a free country?

It's not a bomb look-alike. It's an electronics look-alike, and home-crafting of electronics only implies danger in the minds of people who live within a technological society but deliberately remain completely ignorant of the very technology that separates humans from apes. People who know nothing of technology are ape parasites on a technological society, and their rules, their judgements, and their opinions on technology should be ridiculed as loudly as possible and as openly as is practical.

Idiocracy was right. This is an idiocracy, a society governed by idiots, and it's a democracy, which means those idiots are all around you.


Newsletter please
 
2012-11-20 12:24:28 PM  

I_C_Weener: [Inspector_Clouseau.jpg]    
 
"It looked like a bum."


+1
 
2012-11-20 12:30:06 PM  

Smackledorfer: /plonk


Oh noes! I got old skool killfilified by a usenetter!
 
2012-11-20 12:30:24 PM  
Maybe this has been pointed out, but isn't a watch the very DEFINITION of a timing device?
 
2012-11-20 12:33:51 PM  

eltejon: Smackledorfer: eltejon: Your link does not mention any former military majority.

Ya, it probably wouldn't, what with me never claiming it was a majority.

Mia culpa on that point. I translated "very large percentage" too quickly.


No worries. It seems that in the future my offhanded mocking of the general viewpoints held on fark must be presented with far more citation and specifics than I ever would have thought. I'm looking at Larch on that one. But he probably believes that without individual voting records we can't assume any of the people who voted for Bush, then supposedly later disliked and disowned his policies overlap with those who voted for Romney.
 
2012-11-20 01:05:01 PM  
I don't need to be a bomb expert to know that doesn't look anything like a bomb. We aren't living in a 1980s era Batman movie. "You can't take that on the plane" seems like a reasonable response if you really want to be on the safe side.

It's too bad the world we live in is such utter crap. Including that guy's taste in watches.
 
2012-11-20 01:28:39 PM  
TSA rule #1
Don't bring your own props to the security theater.
 
2012-11-20 01:44:11 PM  

The Larch: GoGoGadgetLiver: They didn't haul him off because it was attached to a bomb (they knew it wasn't). They hauled him off to do a background and associations check as this could have very easily been a security weakness probe. It's due dilligence and not overreacting in the slightest. The guy was a complete and utter dumbass to wear something like that through a security checkpoint.

Look at what you're saying here. You are claiming that a $150K bond is a necessary component of a background and associations check. You must feel stupid.


150k bond prevents someone with international terror resources from getting free before an investigation is complete. Someone who passes such a check with flying colors walks for free a short while later. It isn't the police or airport that decides on a bond. That's a judge.

To know what stupid feels like I would have to shake your hand. No thanks. I might catch the derp.
 
2012-11-20 01:50:50 PM  

GoGoGadgetLiver: 150k bond prevents someone with international terror resources from getting free before an investigation is complete. Someone who passes such a check with flying colors walks for free a short while later. It isn't the police or airport that decides on a bond. That's a judge.


How? Can you explain how freeing someone from jail on a $150K bond keeps them from walking free? Explain it to me slow, like I was a small child. Explain every step of your reasoning. I'm honestly really interested in learning how your mind works.
 
2012-11-20 02:01:03 PM  

Smackledorfer: No worries. It seems that in the future my offhanded mocking of the general viewpoints held on fark must be presented with far more citation and specifics than I ever would have thought. I'm looking at Larch on that one. But he probably believes that without individual voting records we can't assume any of the people who voted for Bush, then supposedly later disliked and disowned his policies overlap with those who voted for Romney.


I know you've only been using the internet since usenet, but I thought I'd point out that the internet is not just one person. There's not just one guy curled up under your desk writing everything you read here. There are hundreds or even thousands of people reading and posting on each fark thread.

You seem to have discovered that some people on fark hold a certain view. And you seem to have discovered that other people on fark hold contradictory views. Hooray for you. You're a discoverer, and maybe you can get a merit badge or something. But you haven't seemed to discover that fact that two groups of people hold two views doesn't necessarily make anyone a hypocrite. You have to demonstrate that there is an intersection between those groups.

Also, you might be interested to know that fark is not a set of secret ballots. The shaded blue lines above each post contain the names of the people who wrote the post. So, for example, if you want to know if someone said one thing in one thread, and a different thing in a different thread, you can look at the names above the posts in each thread and figure that what they said in both places. So, while you (correctly) point out that it would be very difficult to find people who answered anonymous polls saying they disliked Bush and then later anonymously voted for Romney, it is not at all difficult to find people who have posted contradictory things on fark.

But... I forget. You old school usenet plonkified me, so you wont read this.
 
2012-11-20 02:27:24 PM  

The Larch: GoGoGadgetLiver: 150k bond prevents someone with international terror resources from getting free before an investigation is complete. Someone who passes such a check with flying colors walks for free a short while later. It isn't the police or airport that decides on a bond. That's a judge.

How? Can you explain how freeing someone from jail on a $150K bond keeps them from walking free? Explain it to me slow, like I was a small child. Explain every step of your reasoning. I'm honestly really interested in learning how your mind works.


Bonds work the way they have always worked. They are a probability speculation by a judge. In this particular speculation, some dude has to scratch up 15k and give it to dog the f'n bounty hunter who then posts the other 135k. Either the guy doesn't have 15k and can't walk, or he taps into a bank account or acquantance that provides a lead if he turns out to be a terrorist that runs. If he runs and is not a terrorist then dog the f'n bounty hunter shoots him in the nuts, turns him over for the 135k and keeps the 15k. Shoot nuts, profit.

If you want him to absolutely positively not run then you hold him without bond. Since you're the one saying he shouldn't have been held to begin with then I'm sure you can come up with the argument of why a Judge would not be justified in assuming such a probability.

Lets circle back around though shall we? The guy was a dumbass to wear something like that. It looked like either someone trying to sneak something through security, or somebody trying to probe security weaknesses. TSA, police and judges might all be incompetent but they aren't going to haul you off to jail for bringing a 4oz shampoo bottle instead of 3. Does that watch look like a 4oz bottle of shampoo to you?  No. And it wasn't even the only suspicious thing about him.
 
2012-11-20 02:36:46 PM  

GoGoGadgetLiver: The Larch: GoGoGadgetLiver: 150k bond prevents someone with international terror resources from getting free before an investigation is complete. Someone who passes such a check with flying colors walks for free a short while later. It isn't the police or airport that decides on a bond. That's a judge.

How? Can you explain how freeing someone from jail on a $150K bond keeps them from walking free? Explain it to me slow, like I was a small child. Explain every step of your reasoning. I'm honestly really interested in learning how your mind works.

Bonds work the way they have always worked. They are a probability speculation by a judge. In this particular speculation, some dude has to scratch up 15k and give it to dog the f'n bounty hunter who then posts the other 135k. Either the guy doesn't have 15k and can't walk, or he taps into a bank account or acquantance that provides a lead if he turns out to be a terrorist that runs. If he runs and is not a terrorist then dog the f'n bounty hunter shoots him in the nuts, turns him over for the 135k and keeps the 15k. Shoot nuts, profit.

If you want him to absolutely positively not run then you hold him without bond. Since you're the one saying he shouldn't have been held to begin with then I'm sure you can come up with the argument of why a Judge would not be justified in assuming such a probability.

Lets circle back around though shall we? The guy was a dumbass to wear something like that. It looked like either someone trying to sneak something through security, or somebody trying to probe security weaknesses. TSA, police and judges might all be incompetent but they aren't going to haul you off to jail for bringing a 4oz shampoo bottle instead of 3. Does that watch look like a 4oz bottle of shampoo to you?  No. And it wasn't even the only suspicious thing about him.


Yeah, I'm not getting it. You said that it was necessary for him to be jail while the executive branch did the background and association check, and the $150K bond prevented him from walking out of jail. But then the bond didn't prevent him from leaving jail. So if he didn't need to be in jail to do the background and association check, then why did you bring up the background and association check? Is it possible that you're one of those people who doesn't think about things too deeply?
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report