Read my entire post.

I addressed that under "subsequent mealy-mouthed attempts at evasion", thanks.

Your antics here remind me rather strongly of Neil Cavuto and his "Cavuto Mark" on FOX "News". Same bullshit insinuation technique, same profuse denials when called on it.

Once again, seeing as how you were called on it by two other posters besides myself, your implication was clear, regardless of how hysterically you deny it. If you honestly didn't intend the implication, retract your words now. If you did, stand behind your words. But don't blather on about how "if you inferred something from my words then that is entirely your own doing, not mine". That's bullshit, and we all know it.

You sir are an idiot. I think we're done here.

Lob out an ad hominem and flee the field. How depressingly predictable.

Really, You're really going to try to claim you weren't trying to insinuate anything with this line?

Now, I ask you: How many terrorist attacks have there been on planes since this system was put in place?

And when I call you out on your dishonesty, I'm the "troll". Brilliant.

As I made clear above, the lack of arrests for terrorism do not prove anything about the success or failure of the program.

They prove that the program (as far as its stated goals go) is either a failure or pointless. Take your pick.

If I didn't write it then it isn't what I'm saying.

Once again, here's what you did say:

You might even claim that the absence of attacks is a result of the nets being put up and therefore they have been a success.

Now, I ask you: How many terrorist attacks have there been on planes since this system was put in place?

Again, your implication here is crystal clear, your subsequent mealy-mouthed attempts at evasion notwithstanding.

If you inferred something from my words then that is entirely your own doing, not mine.

Bullshit. You're the author of the above words. Man up and either accept the consequences of what you wrote, or retract them.

No it doesn't prove either of those things. If something doesn't happen over an arbitrary amount of time that doesn't mean it cannot happen at any point in the future. Do you really not get that?

Oh really? So does that mean I shouldn't venture out in the morning without a parachute, on the off chance that gravity will malfunction and fling me skyward?

Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

Number of people screened to date: 160,000.

Number of people arrested for NON-terrorism related offenses: 1,266.

Number of people arrested for terrorism-related offenses: ZERO.

If a program cannot generate even ONE terrorism-related arrest in the screening of 160,000 people, one has to seriously consider the possibility that either the methodology is flawed, or the intended targets simply do not exist. Do you really not get that?

If there haven't been any tiger attacks in the whole time the net has been up then there's no basis to say that it has been a success or a failure.

Well, that's a relief. I thought you were going to point to the absence of attacks as some sort of proof that this system is working, despite the complete lack of any definitive evidence, like arrests.

You might even claim that the absence of attacks is a result of the nets being put up and therefore they have been a success.

Now, I ask you: How many terrorist attacks have there been on planes since this system was put in place?

Oh my...looks like I spoke too soon.

On a related note, if you're worried about tiger attacks, you can borrow my tiger repelling rock. It, like the snares, doesn't actually catch tigers, but it's guaranteed to keep them away. I myself haven't so much as seen a tiger since I began carrying it.

Note that I'm not saying it actually has been a success,

No, but you're certainly insinuating it rather loudly...

I'm saying I see no example of it having failed

As I made clear above, the complete lack of any terrorism related arrests clearly spell out the failure of this program. Either the terrorists are there, and are not being caught, or they aren't there at all, in which case the program is pointless...assuming, of course, that "capture of terrorists" was its actual goal...

If it gets higher arrests than random searches what's the problem?

Because this program was supposed to find terrorists, not people with fake IDs or people trying to sneak a couple of ounces through security.

If some villagers are mauled by a tiger, and I promise to catch the tigers, and I implement a system of nets and snares around the village, and I don't catch any tigers, then I have failed to keep my promise, regardless of how many snakes and wild boars I do catch.