3 ms·

Depends on interpretation of > an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal Overall not m

by __s 6y ago

Depends on interpretation of > an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal Overall not many details in article, mostly signals one shouldn't be making "lol tos" remarks without knowing more

baobabKoodaa 6y ago
> Depends on interpretation of >> an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal No, it doesn't depend on intepretation. There is absolutely no way you could interpret that sentence as meaning "he used a stolen badge to get into areas not open to the public". He may or may not have accessed additional areas, but the article certainly does not claim he did. We know he accessed the "secure" arrivals area, and the article strongly hints that that's where he lived. Whether he also accessed other areas is possible, but it's not claimed in the article.
- __s 6y ago
  Apparently it does depend on interpretation since we're having this disagreement. There can't be absolutely no way to interpret in that way, since that's how I interpreted it. Perhaps you're right, & there's absolutely no way I exist
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    Funny :D In all seriousness though, if we detach these two claims: Claim A: The man used the stolen ID to access additional areas besides the arrival area. Claim B: The article claims that claim A is true. Do you genuinely believe that claim B is true? If you say "yes", I will concede and accept that the article can be interpreted that way. Otherwise I will assume that there was some confusion between claim A and claim B.
    - __s 6y ago
      The issue is I considered "secured area" to be non public areas as opposed to "place people wait to board flights after security". Presumably he went through security so I wouldn't consider that penetrating a secured area unless he had items on him which shouldn't get through security. Part of this is due to me being over zealous in attempting to piece together why he'd steal a badge Overall just affirms that I'd need to see case details to know anything. Hence I started out saying "sounds like" to signal my uncertainty
      - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        My comment might be pedantic nitpicking, but what the heck, we've come this far... > Hence I started out saying "sounds like" to signal my uncertainty Yes, your original comment "sounds like X happened" was fine. I replied to that comment with "The article does not make such claims", to clarify that -- although X may have happened -- the article does not claim it did. At this point you said "Depends on interpretation", as if the article could be interpreted to claim that X happened. You explained that one might interpret "secured area" to mean area accessible only to staff. That's a plausible interpretation, I guess. > I considered "secured area" to be non public areas as opposed to "place people wait to board flights after security" Nitpicks: The place where people wait to board flights after security is a non public area (it is restricted from the public; you can not enter that area unless you have a special permission to be in that area). The area where this man lived was apparently the arrivals area (not the departure area that you're talking about). The arrivals area is also a non public area.

by __s 6y ago

baobabKoodaa 6y ago

> Depends on interpretation of >> an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal No, it doesn't depend on intepretation. There is absolutely no way you could interpret that sentence as meaning "he used a stolen badge to get into areas not open to the public". He may or may not have accessed additional areas, but the article certainly does not claim he did. We know he accessed the "secure" arrivals area, and the article strongly hints that that's where he lived. Whether he also accessed other areas is possible, but it's not claimed in the article.

__s 6y ago
Apparently it does depend on interpretation since we're having this disagreement. There can't be absolutely no way to interpret in that way, since that's how I interpreted it. Perhaps you're right, & there's absolutely no way I exist
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  Funny :D In all seriousness though, if we detach these two claims: Claim A: The man used the stolen ID to access additional areas besides the arrival area. Claim B: The article claims that claim A is true. Do you genuinely believe that claim B is true? If you say "yes", I will concede and accept that the article can be interpreted that way. Otherwise I will assume that there was some confusion between claim A and claim B.
  - __s 6y ago
    The issue is I considered "secured area" to be non public areas as opposed to "place people wait to board flights after security". Presumably he went through security so I wouldn't consider that penetrating a secured area unless he had items on him which shouldn't get through security. Part of this is due to me being over zealous in attempting to piece together why he'd steal a badge Overall just affirms that I'd need to see case details to know anything. Hence I started out saying "sounds like" to signal my uncertainty
    - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
      My comment might be pedantic nitpicking, but what the heck, we've come this far... > Hence I started out saying "sounds like" to signal my uncertainty Yes, your original comment "sounds like X happened" was fine. I replied to that comment with "The article does not make such claims", to clarify that -- although X may have happened -- the article does not claim it did. At this point you said "Depends on interpretation", as if the article could be interpreted to claim that X happened. You explained that one might interpret "secured area" to mean area accessible only to staff. That's a plausible interpretation, I guess. > I considered "secured area" to be non public areas as opposed to "place people wait to board flights after security" Nitpicks: The place where people wait to board flights after security is a non public area (it is restricted from the public; you can not enter that area unless you have a special permission to be in that area). The area where this man lived was apparently the arrivals area (not the departure area that you're talking about). The arrivals area is also a non public area.