true<br><br><br>but where will we be when the future comes?

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Quite the paradox you paint. It's not okay to kill someone intentionally, but it's okay to potentially let people be killed intentionally?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Are we still talking about bottled water?<br><br>I'm all for a metal detector to stop handguns on a plane, but we are now at<br>the point where in West Virginia a 1 hour flight to South Carolina is being checked<br>for explosives in bottled water.<br><br>You seriously can't believe that there is any real threat of terrorists using<br>sophisticated explosives to down a commuter plane from WV to SC?<br><br>How remote and bizarre does a potential threat have to be, before you say<br>to yourself - "This is total nonsense".<br><br>How about if a terroist cell was exposed that was going to use explosive toupees? <br>Would you expect security to prove to every man, woman and child<br>they are not wearing a hairpiece before entering a plane?<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:red]Allez Cuisine! Bang a gong, it is on</font color=red>

There's nothing remote or bizarre about liquid or gel explosive materials. For the moment, there is the possibility that they could be used. And if someone found a way to impregnate toupee adhesive with C4, you better believe they should be checking anyone wearing a rug.<br><br>Last week you were carpet bombing the board with daily outrage updates about the carnage in Lebanon. And in hindsight, justifiably. But if say 30 people were to die because a water bottle full of nitro brought down a commuter plane, that would be no big deal?<br><br>And you accused me of being inconsistent? <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And if someone found a way to impregnate toupee adhesive with C4, you better believe they should be checking anyone wearing a rug.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>The question was, should security check every man, woman and child for <br>a hairpiece?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Last week you were carpet bombing the board with daily outrage updates about the carnage in Lebanon. And in hindsight, justifiably. But if say 30 people were to die because a water bottle full of nitro brought down a commuter plane, that would be no big deal?<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>You are comparing real people dying to a hypothetical scenario?<br><br>By the way, I kept the updates to Lebanon in one thread, I'd hardly call it<br>carpet bombing the board.<br><br><br><br>[color:red]Allez Cuisine! Bang a gong, it is on</font color=red>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The question was, should security check every man, woman and child for a hairpiece?<p><hr></blockquote><p> Of course not! But given that even the most expensive toupees and wigs are easily spotted most of the time, it's a matter of checking that which carries it's own alert. You see a guy with a rug, you take a closer look (I don't believe I'm even defending this kakamaimie premise). Likewise, not every passenger is going to be carrying a water bottle. But those that are, get screened. I just don't get what your problem is with playing it safe.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You are comparing real people dying to a hypothetical scenario?<p><hr></blockquote><p>It's only hypothetical 'til it happens.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>By the way, I kept the updates to Lebanon in one thread, I'd hardly call it carpet bombing the board.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Pardon me. I should have said you kept bumping the thread to the top of the page. My bad. You keep splitting hairs like that and you're gonna need a toupee! <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I should have said you kept bumping the thread to the top of the page.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I believe that's the way the software works here at this discussion board. I didn't<br>see an option to not bump the thread back up to top. Every post I made I thought<br>was new and different information.<br><br>Of course, you seemed to made your share of replies in that thread, bumping<br>it up to top as well. Also, several other posters replied and bumped the<br>thread up to the top as well.<br><br>So the thread was busy bumping up to the top of the board. Oh my gosh,<br>I just realized this thread is going be bumped up to the top after this reply<br>as well.<br><br>What's your point anyways? What are you really trying to say?<br><br>[color:red]Allez Cuisine! Bang a gong, it is on</font color=red>

There's absolutely nothing sophisticated or even remotely difficult about putting explosives in a liquid container. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>How remote and bizarre does a potential threat have to be, before you say<br>to yourself - "This is total nonsense".<p><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>Is that what you would have said about explosives in a shoe?<br><br>No matter how you try to spin it, an explosives sniffing dog was alerted, period. I don't care if this was a bottle of water, a belt, a radio or a crapped in baby diaper. The dog smelled something suspicious, and subsequent tests indicated there could be a problem. <br><br>No matter how many people try to bitch and moan about profiling, or fear tactics, or whatever gripe they might have the fact is letting someone through who's alerted a security dog and failed preliminary swab test for explosives would and should be considered criminal negligence.<br><br>What you're saying should be done is just let anyone through because 99% of the time it will be a false positive. That leaves 1% of the time it won't be a false positive.<br><br>Maybe you'll be luck enough to be on the plane where the 1% falls, because if that's how you think than you deserve to be on it.<br><br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Makes you wonder why 300 billion dollars is spent on a war when it could<br>be spent on some of the more important leading causes of death, like let's <br>say the top two. <p><hr></blockquote><p><br>War is more profitable.<br><br>_________________________________________<br>Just a different kinda geek...

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>War is more profitable.<p><hr></blockquote><p>And a hell of a lot more fun!<br><br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®

whoa!<br><br>