«

> Osama must be laughing his ass off. Next time he'll try it with babies
> nappies, toothpaste tubes, bars of soap and maybe inside people too.

Toothpaste already banned, so the next step is the explosive gel baby
nappies!

wilt <> wrote:


>> Osama must be laughing his ass off. Next time he'll try it with babies
>> nappies, toothpaste tubes, bars of soap and maybe inside people too.

>Toothpaste already banned, so the next step is the explosive gel baby
>nappies!

What is humorous are the two subthreads. One is focussed
on the problem of hand-carrying cameras and lenses, the other
mentions the problems of the gear being stolen if carried
in the hold.

Does this suggest that our major concern ought not to be
focussed on bars of soap?

My heritical notion is that we ought not to be worried about
baby oil until we can trust the baggage handlers.

----- Paul J. Gans

"Paul J Gans" <> wrote in message
news:eepnib$3un$...
> wilt <> wrote:
>
>>> Osama must be laughing his ass off. Next time he'll try it with
>>> babies
>>> nappies, toothpaste tubes, bars of soap and maybe inside people
>>> too.
>
>>Toothpaste already banned, so the next step is the explosive gel
>>baby
>>nappies!
>
> What is humorous are the two subthreads. One is focussed
> on the problem of hand-carrying cameras and lenses, the other
> mentions the problems of the gear being stolen if carried
> in the hold.
>
> My heritical notion is that we ought not to be worried about
> baby oil until we can trust the baggage handlers.

Along the same line, if the baggage handlers can't be trusted to not
steal, how can they be trusted to not put a bomb in with the rest of
the baggage?

Obviously security is severely screwed up if a handler can walk out
with $10,000 worth of photo gear and not get asked about it.

In article <eepnib$3un$>,
Paul J Gans <> wrote:

> wilt <> wrote:
>
>
> >> Osama must be laughing his ass off. Next time he'll try it with babies
> >> nappies, toothpaste tubes, bars of soap and maybe inside people too.
>
> >Toothpaste already banned, so the next step is the explosive gel baby
> >nappies!
>
> What is humorous are the two subthreads. One is focussed
> on the problem of hand-carrying cameras and lenses, the other
> mentions the problems of the gear being stolen if carried
> in the hold.
>
> Does this suggest that our major concern ought not to be
> focussed on bars of soap?
>
> My heritical notion is that we ought not to be worried about
> baby oil until we can trust the baggage handlers.

Lots of people travel coach with designer baggage. Perhaps Chanel,
Hunting World etc should stencil "steal me" on the front.

Paul J Gans wrote:
> wilt <> wrote:
>
>
>>> Osama must be laughing his ass off. Next time he'll try it with babies
>>> nappies, toothpaste tubes, bars of soap and maybe inside people too.
>
>> Toothpaste already banned, so the next step is the explosive gel baby
>> nappies!
>
> What is humorous are the two subthreads. One is focussed
> on the problem of hand-carrying cameras and lenses, the other
> mentions the problems of the gear being stolen if carried
> in the hold.
>
> Does this suggest that our major concern ought not to be
> focussed on bars of soap?
>
> My heritical notion is that we ought not to be worried about
> baby oil until we can trust the baggage handlers.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans

?? Baggage handlers stealing things from baggage is an annoying
problem, and should be dealt with, but it is a far cry from being as
much of a problem as terrorists, or merely demented people, who seek to
blow up airplanes full of people. A missing camera can be replaced,
dead people are ....dead.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:47:40 -0500, Ron Hunter, our man in Houston
wrote:

> ?? Baggage handlers stealing things from baggage is an annoying
> problem, and should be dealt with, but it is a far cry from being as
> much of a problem as terrorists, or merely demented people, who seek to
> blow up airplanes full of people. A missing camera can be replaced,
> dead people are ....dead.

It's not the theft of property that could be dangerous. Our gov't
and military have long acted on the principle that anyone that
deviates in any way from being a model citizen (problems with booze,
drugs, sex, gambling, finance) is a security risk and may be coerced
or convinced into taking actions such as (...fill in the blanks...).
Would you argue that baggage handling thieves can't be tempted by
offers, even those of the "can't be refused" variety? If so, a
little LeCarré, Puzo or even a dash of Graham Greene might provide a
useful tonic.

ASAAR <> writes:
> Would you argue that baggage handling thieves can't be tempted by
> offers, even those of the "can't be refused" variety? If so, a
> little LeCarré, Puzo or even a dash of Graham Greene might provide a
> useful tonic.

I hear they especially like good inkjet paper:

http://www.woot.com/Blog/BlogEntry.a...ogEntryId=1254

On 19 Sep 2006 22:05:49 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://> wrote:

>> Would you argue that baggage handling thieves can't be tempted by
>> offers, even those of the "can't be refused" variety? If so, a
>> little LeCarré, Puzo or even a dash of Graham Greene might provide a
>> useful tonic.
>
> I hear they especially like good inkjet paper:

Maigny could have used it to produce his own passport and assorted
papers. They would have passed muster with that woozy border guard,
and he (Maigny) would have been ahead by at least 4 of the 5 packs.
I've used those HP 4"x6" papers, and a trimmer really needs to be
used to eliminate the slightly ragged perf'ed edge. If the papers
aren't neatly trimmed, one runs the risk of changing Il Duce to
something other than el come dulce.

In article <>,
says...
>
> Along the same line, if the baggage handlers can't be trusted to not
> steal, how can they be trusted to not put a bomb in with the rest of
> the baggage?
>
> Obviously security is severely screwed up if a handler can walk out
> with $10,000 worth of photo gear and not get asked about it.
>
>
Not realy, just suggests that they are searched one the way INTO the
'office', not on the way out..

They should , of course, be searched both ways..

T.
>

ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:47:40 -0500, Ron Hunter, our man in Houston
> wrote:
>
>> ?? Baggage handlers stealing things from baggage is an annoying
>> problem, and should be dealt with, but it is a far cry from being as
>> much of a problem as terrorists, or merely demented people, who seek to
>> blow up airplanes full of people. A missing camera can be replaced,
>> dead people are ....dead.
>
> It's not the theft of property that could be dangerous. Our gov't
> and military have long acted on the principle that anyone that
> deviates in any way from being a model citizen (problems with booze,
> drugs, sex, gambling, finance) is a security risk and may be coerced
> or convinced into taking actions such as (...fill in the blanks...).
> Would you argue that baggage handling thieves can't be tempted by
> offers, even those of the "can't be refused" variety? If so, a
> little LeCarré, Puzo or even a dash of Graham Greene might provide a
> useful tonic.
>

I don't know how it works at other airports, but employees coming to
work at DFW go through the same security screening as passengers do. It
seems that leaving they don't have to do that. More's the pity. Seems
no one wonders why someone comes to work with a small paper bag and
leaves with a duffle....