I agree! I’ll keep that little story in mind and if I ever see it occur around me, I’ll happily point out to the TSA that they seem “suspicious”. “Why do you need to rush through line? Your bomb about to go off prematurely?”
Tripler
I ain’t got no problem with that at all.
you’d make an accusation of criminal activity? real funny,
I don’t think it’s intended to be entertaining at all. From the description of that couple and the others who behave this way, it sounds like it would be a reasonable way to deal with that sort of beyond belief arrogance and gigantically overinflated sense of enttitlement.
Besides which saying “they looked ‘suspicious’” is HARDLY an accusation of criminal activity. And unfortunately, it’s unlikely to get the attention of TSA anyway. Afterall, (and based on our observations of what TSA actually does in the airport), everyone knows that little old ladies with fingernail clippers are far more dangerouos and likely to be acting in criminal ways in airports than pushy, rude line-cutters.
???
did you miss this??
.
my comment stands. Some one being an arrogant jerk is not the same as a bomber.
I think he was being facetious.
Um yeah…
No, we didn’t miss his sarcastic “is your bomb about to go off early”.
Nor did I think his suggesting that they were actiing suspiciously as a way of (unlikely to happen) delaying them meant that he was going to accuse them of being bombers.
Way to leap to a conclusion.
then let him retract it. don’t claim, as ** Canvas ** does,
Oh brother.
The two statements aren’t meant to mean that one is going to be the result of the other, though I’ll wait until he comes back to defend himself.
It’s not like he’s suggesting saying “they looked suscpicious, maybe they’re going to BOMB something”.
He sarcastically (and in all likelihood not seriously), suggested simply saying "they looked suspicious, PERIOD. And that is NOT anywhere close to accusing someone of a criminal act.
His sentence of “what is your bomb about to go off” was connected to the rest of his post (on a previous page) about how it seems there is no logical reason to need to rush and push your way through the way the empresses of the world were doing. Then as a sarcastic aside, he added the bomb comment.
JEez, that wasn’t really THAT hard to follow was it? The rest of us got it.
I was talking to wring.
I know, sorry the “um yeah” wasn’t meant to be sarcastic toward you, I was agreeing completely.
I’m just quoting people’s actual words.
I specifically objected to the accusation of a crime and got a lecture from Canvas who neatly avoided the specific actual words that I objected to (stated, not quoted).
Spare me your interpretations and lectures. I objected to an accusation of a crime, the accusation was there. Unless, of course, you want to try and suggest that the person describing the bitchy self absorbed asshole trying to cut lines wasn’t just an arrogant jerk, but a terrorist?
obvious sarcasm??
If it’s sarcastic, let him retract and explain why he used the quoted response.
and Canvas - if the sarcasm was so ‘obvious’, why
which seems to equate rude line cutters w/ criminal behavior.
Well, if you don’t get it, you don’t get it. Trying to line it out for you isn’t “lecturing”.
A person saying, on the Dope, a sarcastic aside of “what’re you late for your bomb” is NOT an accusation of a crime. And again, it was related to the REST of his post, which you’ve obviously ignored, didn’t read, or more likely didn’t understand.
here, I’ll spell it out for you, ** Canvas**. Tripler posted an accusation of a crime.
I objected to the accusation of a crime.
you, canvas, posted that there was no criminal accusation, and go on with the quote I just cited. I point out that there was indeed, a criminal accusation and you fall back on 'he was exaggerating". which is fine , except for his final assertion.
let him interpret his own words. Sure, he may be exaggerating - but he actually said that he’d have no problem w/that.
and that is what I specifically objected to
get it now?
a (seemingly ) real suggestion that an accusation of criminal behavior at an airport would be a good and fun thing to do to an arrogant jerk.
so says the person who claimed there was ‘no criminal accusation’ when she meant ‘None that I thought was serious’. :rolleyes:
Laughing here.
Making a sarcastic statement of “what’re late for your bomb?” ISN"T an accusation of a crime. Unless I missed it and big brother has mobed up the Thought Police.
let him retract - remember your statements “HARDLY an accusation of criminal activity” and “everyone knows that little old ladies with fingernail clippers are far more dangerouos and likely to be acting in criminal ways in airports than pushy, rude line-cutters.”
yea, the line cutters have won.
Okay, now I get it. You don’t understand when people toss off a smart aleck comment.
And yeah, I stand by my statement that making a smart ass comment/question of “what’re late for your bomb” is not an accusation.
To be literal here, in his scenario did he say it TO anyone? No, he did not. In his scenario would the question “what, are you late for your bomb” have actually BEEN said to anyone? No, it wouldn’t have been, only the “he/she looked suspcious” appears to be something that would actually be said to someone. Unless, in his imaginary scenario he was planning on then hanging around and actually stating TO the EoTW the smart aleck comment of “what are you late for your bomb”. And even then, if someone did make a snotty statement like that to someone in real life. I still hardly think it’s an accusation.
In fact His only (and remember this is all totally imaginary and NONE of it has, or is liekly to ever occur), accusation about the line cutter, if any, was to say that he/she “looked suspcious”.
I’m not sure if telling someone that someone else “looked suscpicious” could be construed as an actual accusation, but if it will make your knee feel any better, I’ll concede that saying someone “looked suspicious” could possibly be an accusation.
My goodness, how do you survive in real life if someone’s imagined scenario of justice against the severely over-entitled sends you into such a tizzy of knee-jerking self-righteousness?
You poor stressed out little thing!!
So…is somebody here defending rude line cutters? 'Cause if you are, I disagree with you vehemently.
no, blue, I’m not defending line cutting. I’m simply suggesting that making false accusations of criminal behavior at an airport isn’t funny. Of course, ** Canvas** apparently has difficulty with that. She first claimed (falsely) that there was no such suggestion, then has had to attempt over and over that I’m the one with language difficulties.
I simply suggested that falsely accusing some one of terrorist activites in an airport isn’t funny. Oddly enough, my friend who works at an airport (for homeland security) agrees w/that.
I get sarcasm (use it myself often). I get joking. I get hyperbole. I also get wanting some rude arrogant fuck to be inconvenienced.
where I part company is in the whole suggesting that they may be ‘suspicious’ on a legal basis and thinking it may be fun to make terrorist accusations to airport sercurity might be funny.
Canvas try again looking at the post that I objected to. he quoted another poster who opined “if I were an airport screener I’d decide that such a person should go through more searching” (again, no accusation of crime, just fantasizing about making an arrogant fuck uncomfortable), Then comes the post I had a problem with.
notice his quote signs? as in ‘spoken words’? his intentions are clearly to give airport security the impression of a crime. and ends his post w/ “I got no problem with that”.
and I do.
all of Canvas’s posturing and claims of knee jerking etc amount to hand waving. the poster seems to be clearly advocating what I said. and even obtuse Canvas seems to acknowledge that accusation, grudging though it may be. She had to - the words were actually there.