Boggie Dog Suspended...and Other War Crimes and Atrocities

OhmyGOD I don't even know where to begin with all of the recent posts in this thread.

I don't have time to go back and quote all the posts I want to respond to, as I have a full day at work today. So I'm just going to do this free-form and hope my meaning is clear.

Rugape: Yes it DID happen to me - I had two TSO's, one a Supervisor, demand that I remove my post-surgical back brace. I had with me a print-out from TSA's own website that said I didn't have to. They wouldn't even look at it. When it finally dawned on them that I really wasn't going to remove it, I was subjected to one of the most painful and horrific experiences of my life: the Supervisor "cleared" my back brace by manhandling every inch of it, swabbing the entire thing, then pressing down on it over my recent surgical wound, over my clear objections, until I literally cried out in pain. I was also treated to two complete grope-downs - not one but two, even though the first had already done the whole thing, hair boobs crotch and all, but hey I guess the Supe wanted her shot at pawing me so she did me ALL OVER AGAIN. That Supe is the one who proceeded to rub her hand across my pubis, pressing in until I felt it on my clitoris. Hmmm...do ya think some people take off their medical devices, even though they don't "have to" , because NOT doing so means they'll be treated to similar abuse???

Your continued refrain of "I don't know the facts so I can't comment" is disingenuous at best, and deceitful and disgusting at worst. Have you ever heard the term "a preponderance of evidence"? Given the vast number of passengers reporting the EXACT SAME THING happening to them, how can you continue to stick your head in the sand and say "well garsh I can't comment because I don't know for sure what happened"? It reminds me of the one time my husband was on jury duty - they had a petty thief on trial, he was CAUGHT with the stolen purse (taken from a streetside office he walked into), they had several eye-witnesses who identified him, including his distinctive neck tattoo. But he denied that he did it. No real defense, just "I didn't do it". They ended up with a hung jury because one juror, this batty old lady, refused to convict because SHE wasn't sure it happened. Hey, a martian could have dropped to earth, shape-shifted into looking exactly like the defendant, and stolen that purse! Hung jury, not worth re-trying, dude got off.

WAKE THE F* UP! You know full well it's happening. You just won't go on record as saying it is. And we know you know.

Many in here think you are a nice guy because your posts aren't filled with the disgusting vitriol and contempt for passengers that we see in so many other TSOs who post on these forums. But that doesn't change the fact that you work for an organization that is practicing wholesale assault on a daily basis on innocent civilians...and you refuse to admit it, or treat us with the most basic respect of acknowledging the truth.

Go ahead, Rugape. Call me a liar. Say it to my face. Then we'll see the real you.

 

Thank you, LeeAnne. Count me as another one who's sick of hearing Rugape's unctious (expletive deleted) and even more sick of hearing him called "a nice guy."

 

I'm not going to join in casting aspersions on Rugape's character. I do question why he's reluctant to seriously consider the testimony of those three elderly women strip searched at JFK. They were very compelling witnesses and corroborated by an LEO who was there. Surely he doesn't think this should be permitted in this country.

 

I have never cast aspersions on his character (though I'm getting close to it). I have and do cast aspersions on his statements.

 

Sorry to disagree with you ladies, but obviously I do. Rugape is doing a good job of being nice. Nice is a nuanced word. I use it when no other word will do.

Etymology of "nice":

I know myself not to be particularly nice, and I can live with that. Instead I strive to be kind and courteous unless my ethics demand different tactics.

There are many here who would like to have a TSA employee posting at this site. Please consider respecting these people's wishes. In most cases I agree with these people. Note that I simply refrain from exchanging posts with people who show overt signs of cluster B personality disorders. Could you consider doing the same with people you truly object to?

I respectfully submit to all that there is strategic wisdom to permitting one's opponent in a civilized difference of opinion a dignified out.

If you do not consider your opponent worthy of civil treatment, please consider not exchanging posts with him or her. If your opponent is not capable of civil behavior, please consider not exchanging posts with him or her.​

If you find me so objectionable that you cannot bring yourself to post directly to me, then I'm truly sorry that I've offended you. I shall absent myself for a while in order to permit tempers to cool.
​

 

And don't forget that in at least one of the news reports (CBS?) law enforcement at the airport were on record saying that was exactly what they were doing.

 

That is a thought process that can be productive in some circumstances, but if the person has done something egregious, they should be found out and dealt with properly. If you have a truly bad situation (I am not talking about someone not saying hello or being nicey nice), then it is not a time to shy away from the discipline measures that are there. Each case should be evaluated on it's own merits (or lack thereof) and dealt with accordingly.

 

Isn't rugape part of TSA's blog team, a cohort of Blogdad Bob? Has anyone considered that perhaps he is just a PR shill assigned to provide disinformation & instill warm fuzzy feelings here at TUG?

 

What good does it do us to have a TSA employee posting here if he won't even acknowledge the facts, or talk about what's happening? How can you have a useful conversation with someone who responds to everything with "I can't speak intelligently about that because I don't know what happened"...in spite of the numerous reports of what happened? Just sayin'.

I acknowledge that I have unwisely engaged with the one person I swore I wouldn't engage with. I have tried to understand why I did that...and in reflecting on the history, I think it's all part and parcel with the PTSD I suspect I suffered after my assault and molestation at OKC. That "person" blatantly, publicly ridiculed me "over there", right after it happened...and it was like throwing salt into the wound. Imagine this: a rape victim goes to the police department to report being raped, and they all laugh at her and tell her she's lying, because the rapist is one of them. That's what it felt like.

This realization has helped me to recommit to avoid engaging with (love this description!) people who show overt signs of cluster B personality disorders. So that will not happen again.

But I'll tell ya, I'm getting damn sick and tired of being called a liar by TSOs...nicely or not nicely.

 

Of course. I assume that's the case.

So recognizing that this is almost certainly true, what benefit is there to responding to him in a manner that makes us seem irrational and downright nasty to the casual visitor?

Are we waging a PR war or not?

 

And now I'm going to ask Rugape a direct question: since you don't "know what happened" to the three strip-search victims and thus can't speak to those situations, you have here a victim of an assault at OKC. I am telling you what happened - first-hand.

What do you have to say about what I experienced?

 

What I mean by a big to do is that everyone involved seems to tighten up - that is a normal response to a higher than average stress level. Most investigations do not blow up like they do on tv, they are a tedious, thankless gathering of information and compiling of evidence that increases the stress level of all involved. That quote is absolutely correct, that being said, most of the ones I have seen were not advertised like the "big show" styled ones, they just were apparent by the tension when the investigators were around. Luckily, I have not seen one where they brought in a "prime time" type of interviewer that uses bluster and bravado, they have all been professional and straight forward.

Professional standards is the new group created by Administrator Pistole. Based on what I have read, they operate fairly independently of the traditional heirarchy that has been used until this point - but they are new, and just now getting their feet under them, so they may not be having as much impact as I would like to see.

 

That's always what I assumed.

 

1. They seem dishonest to everyone when they do this, not just us. It's a win for us every time a real or fake "TSA employee" does this.
2. I agree. Been there, done that, developed my own coping mechanisms. Do what works for you.
3. We really, really, really need that "ignore" function! I read a post by Ronbo yesterday evening. Will someone please beat me about the head and shoulders with a rotting fish carcass? That was stupid, stoopid, dumb!

 

Heil.

 

Excellent interpretation of the term "than you must.", Curious. You're the first person ever to accuse me of using too few words.

 

I post here on my own, and so far, I have received personal attacks, aspersions on my character (to quote another poster here), and a series of downright nasty commentary directed at me - to the point that other members here have "kind of" defended me. If I were a weaker willed person, I would just leave, but I will continue to post here - of my own free will, because it is what I wish to do.

 

Then there should be an investigation into that, and a statement from said LEO should be taken and followed up on. Was the LEO in the area when this happened? Were they in the private screening room? I approach everything from an investigators point of view, something that stems from my younger days. It is not always what you know that is important (in many cases), it is what you can prove. If you can't prove it, then not much good can come of bringing charges or accusing someone out of turn.

If said LEO could bring an investigation to a proper conclusion, then they should be involved in the process.

 

Except when it's being used by one group of people trying to control another group of people. Then it profiteth greatly.

 

And isn't that part of the whole beauty of touching people under their skirts, or in closed rooms, or "arbitrarily and capriciously" deleting video recordings?

TSA will not get away with this forever.