Your entire first post is a giant ad hominem with a question stuck at the end. Your second post has a few more ad hominens as well. I will document some of them for you here shortly

You can certainly read your own words here that were posted publicly. You made these statements so you have the burden of proof for these statements, I will comment after each one:

I can't tell if you are just using sarcasm here or making an ad hominem using reverse sarcasm.

Provide documentation for all these posts you mention where I have stated there is no way for them to win and that they damned if they do damned if they dont.
Also explain what that has to do with original article posted in this topic.

This is quite clearly about me and not the news article that is the foundation for this topic. Another ad hominem.

Actually you are twisting something right there again. I wasn't complaining, I used sarcasm as opening comments on a news article. Here are my exact words:

"Oh man, I guess I will have to memorize the travel almanac for my next vacation. I sure won't be holding an Almanac in my hand the next time I "observe" a historic landmark or other place of notable interest."

You started with the ad hominem attacks I have documented after this. If you would have merely asked your question and/or merely commented on the news article I would have no issues with your posts in this thread. Discussing the issue of profiling or other investigative alternatives is fine as well as the topic that the news article is about. Recent expiriences have taught me that the lowest form of discourse is making personal snipes at a poster rather than discussing the topic at hand.

I expect personal snipes to end or to get the attention of moderators
The rules clearly state:
and this from Memnoch's fair play thread at the top of the forum:
Recently folks have gotten away with calling me anti-this and resentful-of- that both here and elsewhere simply becasue I held a different opinion or expressed that opinion in way they didn't like.

Perhaps your suggestions that I don't support the efforts of law enforcement to stop terrorists and that all I do is complain and not offer solutions is poorly timed and maybe ill-advised as well.

I dont mind having mindful discourse about the topics at hand. like the news article that was posted. But clearly making personal snipes and using ad hominem debate tactics and making defamatory implications violates the forums rules. Perhaps you haven't broken any of these rule and you have just skated close. Maybe I am just a bit over sensitive becasue of recent events?

I do know that if I get anymore "You are this, Your posts, You only do this" type posts I will ask for moderation and clarification of the forum rules with regards to making topics too personal.

Besides- making it personal takes the fun out of having discussions. Who can learn from divergent veiwpoints and new perspectives if the discussion consists of "you are this and you are that"?

Take Care,
Chewy

<font color=deepskyblue>In reference to the highlighted text here, I am clipping the paragraph that you highlighted in the original article....


<font color=white>The FBI noted that use of almanacs or maps may be innocent, "the product of legitimate recreational or commercial activities." But it warned that when combined with suspicious behavior -- such as apparent surveillance -- a person with an almanac "may point to possible terrorist planning."</font>

If you will notice, the last line indicates that the FBI is NOT using the presence of almanacs as a sole indicator. They specifically state that the presence of an almanac "when combined with suspicious behavior"...may point to possible terrorist planning.

It is seems evident to me that the police won't be arbitrarily "pestering tourists". Instead, they will be looking for other indicators in addition to the presence of an almanac. This fact is ignored in the paranoid scenarios you and <font color=white>skywalker</font> presented.

I realize you are using sarcasm to make your point, I simply think you are exaggerating the reaction officials will take regarding this issue.

As I said in my first post, I doubt I would have much to worry about if I decided to observe a national landmark and took my almanac with me. My lack of fear is NOT because I'm caucasian - it is because I would have my wife and kids with me. The A.Q. terrorists generally travelled either individually or in groups of 2-3 when visiting areas in preparation for the attack according to information uncovered about their preparations after the 9/11 attack). And, of course, they were all male.

If a group of 2-3 Middle Eastern men showed up at a national landmark that is a potential terrorist target, that would be one indicator. If these same men seemed interested in learning detailed information about the landmark, that would be a second indicator {most tourists just ask general questions in reference to whatever info is provided by the tour guide or recreation center...if someone started asking for much more in-depth info, that would indicate an unusual interest}. By themselves, these indicator could be perfectly innocent...but when combined, they would certainly warrant a little extra attention from the authorities charged with protecting the landmark, IMHO.

I'm sorry - I simply don't see the idea of including the presence of almanacs as one possible indicator of suspicious behavior as an infringement of my rights or freedom.</font>

Why not just ban almanacs. We could have an "almanac burning party".

So it is not feasable that a possible terrorist could visit sites with a woman and child in tow?

I'm not really paranoid, at least in regard to myself, maybe I am for innocent others. I guess it all depends on how far the investigation could be taken.

There are few targets of opportunity in Central Vermont, I think. So I doubt there's much for me and my family to fear locally.

And of course, it does not mean I am insensitive to the fears of others across the World.

Mark

<font color=deepskyblue>Certainly a possible terrorist could travel with a woman and child in tow, but that has not been the normal pattern for the A.Q. terrorists. They have always been individual (or very small groups) of men. Given thier disdainful attitude towards women in general, I don't know if they would change modus operandi or not - but it hasn't been their pattern in the past. And that is what the FBI is warning authorities to watch for. Again, it is just a common-sense approach to try to predict if and/or when an attack may occur. An extremely difficult job under the best of circumstances.

Certainly there is a potential for this measure to be abused, but I just don't believe most authorities are going to detain and interrogate tourists simply because they have an almanac in their car. I may end up being wrong about that and I will be the first to sadly acknowledge that if I am. But only time will tell if that is the case or not.</font>

Well, after all the criticism logical pointers to police officers is getting, I think we just need to go back to the tried and true method of terrorist identification....

SKIN COLOR [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[Edit] Let me elaborate a bit. Racial profiling is wrong, mkay. But, so is making any presumption based on circumstances and facts. Single man travelling alone, PFLP keychain and wierdly annotated almanac in hand -- but, no factors to look at. Nope, nothing to see here. Wierd fuse sticking out of his shoe -- must be a fashion thing. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Any such investigation to develop probable cause, such as a visual "look" at someone, needs to take in a number of factors to make a decision. This IS a helpful hint for law enforcement -- it's one more factor to look for. No factor is determinative, but what some of you seem to be advocating is NO factors may be used at all.

Which relegates us to waiting until the next tragedy happens rather than acting to prevent it. The over-PC-ness of this is silly. And the Ben Franklin photoshop was not even funny, because it relies on a misinterpretation of the situation rather than on the reality -- which is a reasonable alert as to a relevant factor.

Um.... skywalker, now that the Old Man in the Mountain fell apart, I don't think there are ANY targets north of Mass. :D

[ 12-30-2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I know, make people register their almanics. :D

$50/year for registration, and a $1000 fine if you are caught with an unregistered almanac. :D

Sometimes I feel like an insane leader. :D </font>

[ 12-30-2003, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
As TL aptly pointed out....it makes absolutley no difference what the people in charge do..those here who criticize about almanacs will criticize no matter what action is taken...no matter what action is not taken. No win scenario for the guys who have to try to protect us....so that ebing the case...I think they should profile using every metric they think necessary....what have they got to loose? they are going to be criticized anyway.</font>