Peter Duniho wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
You need to invest in a news reader that can actually go back and look
at posts. My exact quote was "any overt differences".

Perhaps you should take your own advice. Here is the post to which I
replied:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...3?dmode=source

You will note the complete absence of the word "overt" in that post. Adding
the word "overt" later doesn't change the falseness of your original
statement any more than adding the word "appreciable" does.

Oh, so you want to go back 4 posts. Ok, then my quote was ...
" I don't think you will notice a difference ". Since I have not
noticed a difference in the way I fly, in my ability to fly where I
want, in crossing the border, I suspect the OP will not either.

I disagree, I'm still flying as are others.

You are well within your rights to disagree. That portion of your post is a
matter of opinion, and there's no right or wrong answer.

The claim that only D.C. pilots have been affected is what is incorrect, and
is not a matter of opinion. It is factually demonstrable to be false.

My claim is that "I don't think you will notice a difference", for
those outside of D.C, which is certainly true.

My reply to your post was only to address the error in your own post. The
overall theme of the thread is irrelevant.

The theme of the posts is pilots leaving aviation. That has always been
the theme. You tried to change the theme to "pilots bitching about ANY
change since 9/11" and then took all my posts out of context. The
context of all my posts has always been "Pilots Bailing Out". I still
hold that for those outside of D.C. there have not been enough changes
to justify the belief that post-9/11 is causing a outflux of pilots.

-Robert, CFII