delete

[Newsjock]

I don't take well to false accusations. Find this story somewhere else.

[Razoor]

1. way to scare someone

what a cruel joke

[LisaM]

2. Let's hope

that this is an EX-TSA employee. I call that domestic terrorism. She's going to be afraid to go anywhere now.

[MineralMan]

26. At the link, in boldface but oddly omitted from the OP

is the statement that the agent is no longer with the TSA.

[Edweird]

3. Yeah, that's not funny. It would be nice if flying didn't suck so much, but that isn't helping.

I don't want Carrot Top screening me.

[Grand Taurean]

4. Put the TSA agent on the street.

Well deserved.

[MineralMan]

11. He's already been fired. That was in the article, too, but

was conveniently left out of the OP. TSA bashing, pure and simple, even though the TSA fired the guy immediately. Do you suppose there aren't assholes in every walk of life?

Only if you read the article do you find out that this moron lost his job. Only part of the news was posted by this OP.

[Grand Taurean]

38. I went after the individual agent.

[drm604]

5. This should result in a lawsuit. n/t

[MineralMan]

6. Misleading title. The moron TSA guy is going to lose his job

over this stupid thing, and the woman traveler was not prevented from flying. The TSA guy is an idiot, and will pay for his idiocy with his job. In fact, reading the story at the link, he already has.

[Bluebear]

7. Who said she couldn't fly? And he should lose his job! What's misleading?

[MineralMan]

9. He already lost his job. Oddly enough, that information was not

included in the post. Misleading, and done to attack the TSA, which has dealt with this individual already.

[Bluebear]

10. Oh I certainly took it as individual idiocy, not TSA idiocy, I just read it defferently

I'm glad he is unemployed.

[MineralMan]

13. Seems the TSA did the right thing, right?

There are assholes everywhere. An individual asshole does not mean the entire agency is bad.

This was deliberately misleading. In the orignal article, the fact that the guy was fired was in boldface. It was deliberately omitted from the OP. Go look at the link.

[JonLP24]

17. deliberately misleading?

While this appears to be more than 4 paragraphs I usually only post a portion of the article and include a link with no intentions of misleading people by leaving out information DUers can find simply by clicking on the link.

Also the poster doesn't add any personal comments bashing the TSA so I would be careful to accuse him/her of deliberately misleading.

[MineralMan]

19. I will do as I please. It was a short article, and the information

about the dismissal (or quitting) was in BOLDFACE at the end of the article. It could not be missed.

I call a deliberate omission. You may see it as you choose.

[JonLP24]

21. The OP actually posted more paragraphs than what is normally given

for a news item. Since it's at the end of the article I can see why it wasn't posted since most DUers usually copy and paste from top to a few paragraphs below and includes a link where DUers can read all the information.

[MineralMan]

22. The OP has deleted his post, so it's moot.

Here's the original link to the story:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/82230762.html?cmpid=15585797

[ebayfool]

27. Most DUers copy & paste the most pertinent paragraphs -

paragraphs that most embody the story. The dude getting fired would be fairly pertinent to the piece.

[MineralMan]

29. That's what I'd think. That's why the paper boldfaced it.

[JonLP24]

31. I think the OP got the story down

including going over the 4 paragraphs and skipping the part......

In the tense new world of air travel, we're stripped of shoes, told not to take too much shampoo on board, frowned on if we crack a smile.

The last thing we expect is a joke from a Transportation Security Administration screener - particularly one this stupid.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20100121_Daniel_Rubin__It_was_no_joke_at_security_gate.html

If the OP's goal was to get people mad red at the TSA wouldn't he or she include this part? He also got the entire scenario down from what happened when she arrived to the part where the agent indicated he was kidding. I think that embodies the story very well.

[MineralMan]

34. And, yet, the OP pulled the story when called on it.

What do you make of that?

[n2doc]

8. If I were to joke at he gate

I'd likely end up strip searched or in jail.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. They are drunk with their own power.

[MineralMan]

14. Actually not. The TSA agent was summarily dismissed.

Had you read the link, you would have seen that omitted information in boldface. The OP deliberately omitted that fact. The article was very short.

[Poll_Blind]

15. Good! The little fuck lost his job/quit. Whatevs, fuck that asshole. n/t

PB

[MineralMan]

16. But he is not the TSA. The TSA dumped his ass.

The OP implies that it is the TSA that did this, not some moron employee who no longer works there. I call it a deliberate omission, designed to malign the TSA one more time. Feh!

[MineralMan]

18. How did you miss the boldfaced information that the guy

is no longer working for the TSA? How could you not include that information? I'm very disappointed. You may be a news junky, but you manipulated this story for your post. Bad idea!

[MineralMan]

20. And, now, the poster has deleted his post.

I rest my case.

[ebayfool]

23. And it can STILL be un'recd (I've wondered @ that!)

Seems a lot of people count on DUers accepting what's excerpted without clinking on links. Everyone seems to be just itching to get fired up @ something - anything - doesn't even have to be true or verified. Just any old red meat will do. Pity. I remember when DUers demanded links, verification, proof. Now ... notsomuch.

[MineralMan]

24. Bingo! I read all links. There's often some very interesting

information at the link that is omitted in the post.

[JonLP24]

28. I don't know what the OP's intentions were

(Obviously newsjock is stating that the accusations to mislead are false)

However I know I'll post 4 paragraphs or so and with a link usually from top to the fourth paragraph. The OP's headline was factual referring to the TSA agent playing a joke(I know he is fired but at the time he did that he was a TSA agent) and it included a link. If some DUers got the wrong idea without reading the entire article than I can't blame that on the OP unless we're supposed to post entire articles.

[MineralMan]

30. I don't care, really. It was a misleading OP.

The pertinent information was in boldface at the end of the article. Should have been included, since it was important enough for the paper to make it bold. The same paper has now produced a new story which starts with that information.

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/20100121_Man_in_airport_screening_incident_no_longer_TSA_worker.html

Apparently, they thought that the information was important enough to post an entirely new story.

Think about it.

[JonLP24]

32. I thought about it

and I could see you jumping all over myself for making the same mistake.

[MineralMan]

33. Yes, and I would, too. You owe it to DU to read the article you

quote from and report it accurately. The OP did not do that.

[JonLP24]

35. What I'm saying is

I would post a headline, a few paragraphs, and a link. That is all and nothing more, I would NOT have any intentions or deliberately mislead but you would accuse me of doing so any ways?

If you find something I should post and you respectfully request I do than I would. The accusations of misleading is what I'm bothered about unless you have evidence instead of speculation.

[MineralMan]

36. I said, in my first post that the title was misleading,

and it was. The OP pulled the post. It is finished.

[JonLP24]

37. I don't think it was misleading

I can't remember word for word but it told me what the part of the story that is why it is a story which is the TSA agent(he was a TSA agent at the time) plants the fake drug in a joke. TSA agent fired is a story after the story, the part he posted is the 'why'.

As to other question what I think of it.. I think newsjock was probably bothered by your accusations where he addressed that part so he/she removed the story because he didn't want to deal with it.

[MineralMan]

25. Link to the original article:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/82230762.html?cmpid=15585797