stuckincincy Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 I always start good threads, No? Where have you been? 476342[/snapback] Yes. You get a gold star for starting the kids fighting and then leaving the scene. Child abuse gets a bad rap... I've been in the hospital. But I'm back.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Well they hired you so I wouldn't put much stock in your coworkers either. 476442[/snapback] I don't... Over the last 15 years... I have been institutionalized also.
BillsWatch Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Patdowns have never stopped anything. They're a waste of money and an invasion of privacy. Either the NFL is doing this for window dressing, or they're doing it to stop people from smuggling in food, thus increasing their concession revenue. 475977[/snapback] Food no (it is allowed to bring food in as long as it is contained in clear bags) but things such as water yes. I had an IDENTICAL bottle of water that they sell inside WITHOUT the cap and they said no "security risk". It is DEFINITELY fiancially driven which is one of my objections (phony security). At least the airports don't say 'no you can not bring that nail clip inside and sell identical product in stores when you pass security gates. It is also regarding changing rules AFTER you buy a ticket. You bought it with certain considerations, NFL was talking internally about this policy but it did not reach light of day until after sales were done because they did not want to impact ticket sales. What if you bought a CD and then you were told after you bought it that you would need a special adaptor not normally needed or need to buy some software? You would ask for a refund, right? The NFL has gotten into the habit of changing conditions and expecting consumers to just live with it - an example is the moving of games to different times - and it should stop.
erynthered Posted October 16, 2005 Author Posted October 16, 2005 Yes. You get a gold star for starting the kids fighting and then leaving the scene. 476643[/snapback] What? The rollecoaster is still going. I like to watch them crash.
Corp000085 Posted October 16, 2005 Posted October 16, 2005 Food no (it is allowed to bering food in as long as it is contained in clear bags) but things such as water yes. I had an IDENTICAL bottle of water that they sell inside WITHOUT the cap and they said no "security risk". It is DEFINITELY fiancially driven which is one of my objections (phony security). At least the airports don't say 'no you can not bring that nail clip inside and sell identical product in stores when you pass security gates. It is also regarding changing rules AFTER you buy a ticket. You bought it with certain considerations, NFL was talking internally about this policy but it did not reach light of day until after sales were done because they did not want to impact ticket sales. What if you bought a CD and then you were told after you bought it that you would need a special adaptor not normally needed or need to buy some software? You would ask for a refund, right? The NFL has gotten into the habit of changing conditions and expecting consumers to just live with it - an example is the moving of games to different times - and it should stop. 476690[/snapback] Good post. There's apparently some good ones in this thread since it's in its 7th page. However, i haven't read any except for this one, and its a good post. Also, i'd like to add that it is a public stadium with an outsourced private security group doing the allegedly intrusive searches. In some regards, it may seem like a frivilous lawsuit, but in others, its right on the money.
erynthered Posted October 16, 2005 Author Posted October 16, 2005 I have been institutionalized also. 476644[/snapback] I could say something sarcastic, but I wont. Since you brought it up, would you like to elaborate?
stuckincincy Posted October 16, 2005 Posted October 16, 2005 I could say something sarcastic, but I wont. Since you brought it up, would you like to elaborate? 476709[/snapback] Any response would really deserve its own thread.
Adam Posted October 16, 2005 Posted October 16, 2005 http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/14/Tampabay...es_legali.shtmlI knew someone would do it. 475838[/snapback] If they dont like it, they dont have to go. Screw them
kegtapr Posted October 16, 2005 Posted October 16, 2005 Any response would really deserve its own thread. 476737[/snapback] Every EII response deserves it's own thread, as it never seems make any sense in the one it's in.
erynthered Posted October 16, 2005 Author Posted October 16, 2005 If they dont like it, they dont have to go. Screw them 476739[/snapback] That about covers it, Adam.
Mark VI Posted October 16, 2005 Posted October 16, 2005 I don't... Over the last 15 years... I have been institutionalized also. 476644[/snapback] Shocking
stuckincincy Posted October 16, 2005 Posted October 16, 2005 Every EII response deserves it's own thread, as it never seems make any sense in the one it's in. 476743[/snapback] Thread drift does occur, but yes, some are gifted with the ability to pass through drift and go straight to thread avalanche.
erynthered Posted October 18, 2005 Author Posted October 18, 2005 More follow up to this lawsuit. The Tampa Sports Authority is the lawsuit's target, but the security measure was mandated by pro football. Sports Authority members voted unanimously Monday to oppose Hillsborough County resident Gordon Johnston's lawsuit when it goes to court Wednesday for an emergency hearing. But some board members expressed frustration that taxpayers will have to pay to defend a security measure that the NFL mandated http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/18/Tampabay..._pay_for_.shtml
Fezmid Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 The home team pays event security Turns out this is an incorrect statement: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/18/Tampabay..._pay_for_.shtml The Sports Authority initially estimated the cost at about $9,500 a game, though it has proven to be about $7,500 on average. That cost falls to taxpayers. So I hope residents in NFL cities are ok with paying $7500-$9500/game for window dressing. CW
Campy Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 Turns out this is an incorrect statement:http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/18/Tampabay..._pay_for_.shtml 479240[/snapback] In Tampa perhaps, but not everywhere We have increased our security staff and we have gone with a new security firm.-Bills President and General Manager Tom Donahoe. I'm kind of surprised you're still championing this. At the end of the day, you're entering a place where others are responsible for the general safety of everyone in attendance. Perhaps you've never been through a stadium pat down before, but it's hardly a cavity check. Frankly, with everything going on in the world, this is a non-issue to me. Have you been scouring the web all week looking to punch holes in every single statement made by those who believe it's a big deal about nothing? Give it a rest already.
drnykterstein Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 I was going to bump this thread sometime this week, but since its here already... I'd just like to say at the game on sunday I brought two bottled waters into the stadium with me. They were both on my person (no not down my pants) and went fully undetected by security. I did water just because its harmless if I get caught. I wanted to see what I could bring in. It was very easy, the two bottles were in two different places and neither were patted. It was actually kind of funny, because after I got past the first security guy some other security lady saw a suspicious bulge in my lower leg. She patted that down and still found nothing. My two bottled water were safely elsewhere. What does this all prove? - I could easily sneak a gun into the stadium, or sneak something the size of two bottled waters in. Probably something larger if i tried. - The security is useless and a waste of money. - I still can't believe they are patting down little kids Also of note, for the guy who said this patting down thing was a plot to draw more concessions money. My dad brought two bags of chips and a sub into the stadium. They were in a clear plastic bag and the security guy saw them. They didn't seem to care if we brought food in. So that all said, I stand by my stance that the pat-downs are a waste of money placebo that does nothing but piss a lot of people off and waste a lot of people's time.
Fezmid Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 Have you been scouring the web all week looking to punch holes in every single statement made by those who believe it's a big deal about nothing? Give it a rest already. Actually, I just read the link that posted above my thread. Hadn't actually even thought about the topic until saw the thread bump up again. No reason to get bent out of shape, we can all have our own opinions on the matter and there's nothing wrong with sharing some facts. And just because TD said he hired a new security firm, doesn't mean that the state isn't paying for it. We just don't know (and may not be able to find out, unless someone else starts a lawsuit). CW
Campy Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 No reason to get bent out of shape, we can all have our own opinions on the matter and there's nothing wrong with sharing some facts. 479458[/snapback] Believe you me Fez, of all the people on TSW that can get under my skin, you're way, way, way down on the list. Sorry if my post seemed harsh - I type the way I speak, but it doesn't always translate very well. That said, this is the the kind of thing that I view as an invasion of privacy. You might not agree, but that's far worse than a stadium pat down IMO. Orwell's looking more and more like a seer; big brother is coming.
Fezmid Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Believe you me Fez, of all the people on TSW that can get under my skin, you're way, way, way down on the list. Sorry if my post seemed harsh - I type the way I speak, but it doesn't always translate very well. But I'm actually ON the list?! That said, this is the the kind of thing that I view as an invasion of privacy. You might not agree, but that's far worse than a stadium pat down IMO. Orwell's looking more and more like a seer; big brother is coming. 480112[/snapback] Agree 100%. That's why I always donate money to the Electronic Freedom Foundation ( http://www.eff.org ). They do a lot of good work against things like this, content management, etc.. EDIT: If I would've read the article a little closer, I would've seen that they actually credited EFF with finding it. Maybe I need to wake up a bit more before posting this morning CW
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 If you can't fix your whole house should you just give up and not fix anything? Our "whole house" is pretty big. There is no way anyone could/can fix it all. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything? 476123[/snapback] The whole conversation seems o pointout that there is a difference (and often a contradiction) between being motivated by principle and being motivated by reality. The real answer seems to be that people and society as a whole are motivated by both and simply try to strike a balance, The solutions usually end up being something that at least bows to the importnance of both things, but totally satisfies neither. This then creates a situation where the easiest thing in the world is to point out the areas within the situation where some principle is not held to or where something unrealistic is done. Folks then seem to take the easy way out of citing these examples to dismiss the whole situation as being yet ANOTHER example of the stupidity of THEM. The most interesting arguments are those which advocate a real-world solution for striking a difficult balance rather than those which dogmatically hold to some principle without recognizing that like it or not we live in the real world and a balance will have to be struck. The irony of it all is that the way society does get to a balance is by having folks rant and be dogmatic and then the baby is split to give everyone some level of disatisfation.
Recommended Posts