"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
True. But the fact that the pilot is in control (of others) should
influence rulemaking (on behalf of others).

Boats don't have pilots?

Scientists disagree that I don't know anybody who was killed by a meteor?

Once again, you rewrite my post to suit your desire.

I didn't write that you know someone who was killed by a meteor. I wrote
that you know OF someone who was killed by a meteor (or more correctly, you
SHOULD know OF someone...if you are ignorant of scientific facts, that
certainly could get in the way of your understanding).

[...]
One, actually.

A second airplane killed another bunch of people right nearby.

Again, rewriting my post. My comment about two airplanes does not in any
way preclude two separate events. Your reply simply illustrates the lack of
anything real for you to criticize.

And you are right, rulemaking would not have altered that. But my claim
was not that rulemaking would have saved anyone, it was that large
aircraft do have a risk of falling out of the sky.

I never said they don't. And with respect to the question of rule-making,
it is VERY MUCH relevant whether an event would be stopped by rule-making.
Ironic that you would claim it's not relevant, and then write this:

And that it was deliberate is irrelevant also. The fact that they were
large aircraft attracted those who would use them as weapons. Small
aircraft are not as effective, therefore as attractive, a fact not
recognized by the ADIZ people.

The biggest problem with the ADIZ (rule-making) is that it has no effect on
the intentional actions of terrorists. The question of intent versus
accidental is very relevant to the question of rule-making.

I realize that making up stuff is a popular Usenet tactic, but I really have
no interest in feeding your tendencies.

Pete