[General Battuta]

We're talking about police officers and an arson team here, not teachers.

I've spent this entire thread talking about teachers. I've just spent 12 pages arguing whether or not it was in my best interests (as a school staff member) to tell the administration, and if they don't know, call the cops.

I have quotes and quotes of people questioning me on how crazy I am for thinking an object is a bomb, or the odds on a school attack, or about talking to the children. I've spent the entire thread talking about school response.

All of the sudden we're not talking about teachers, we're talking about police. And I think I have a good idea about why the sudden change.

Because you caught up with what everyone else has been talking about.

What do the school and police get out of knowingly "investigating" something they know isn't true? You're telling me these people knew it was a false alarm and instead of doing what they're supposed to do, which is stop, decided to keep going.

This is not what I said.

You may reread my earlier posts if you wish to further examine my position.

I find your argument totally incoherent. It appears to start from a position and then use that position to justify the starting position.

[General Battuta]

Anyway, I'm sorry, but I just don't think further debate is going to get us anywhere. We appear to be departing from mutually incompatible assumptions that have not been examined or rectified.

As I've said, my position stands. It does not appear to be getting across, and I am happy to blame that on faults in my own presentation. Nonetheless I think that it has been adequately registered.

[BloodEagle]

*facepalm*

Identifying an object is a failure then? That is the only thing this entire process is designed to do. That's the only reason this process exists: to identify objects that are believed to be potentially harmful.

GB stated that your argument was that ''[...] the system must have succeeded because the system could not fail." You stated that you didn't use the word 'success', and then ignored everything else he stated. You then stated that it was a success (the system, I'm assuming).

To reiterate:

*facepalm*

Oh, and I would thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.

[Colonol Dekker]

This topic started off badly and went downhill from there.