TSA has a fan

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
I'm a moderate here - I believe we have to expect, and even encourage some
rulemaking in light of the things that have happened. 9/11 proved that
civil
aviation has become a method of choice for terrorists, and a continuing
flow
of information indicates they still concentrate on such methods.

Same thing could be said for renting U-Haul trucks. But they continue to
operate their business unfettered.

Your "moderation" is ill-placed.

In article ,
says...

Your "moderation" is ill-placed.


Moderation offends extremists.
Yet it's the basis of reconciliation.

I do believe that in the times we live in, it is reasonable to expect a few
new rules, and in fact we should desire to participate in new rulemaking. Not
every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case, but then the old
ones sometimes didn't either.

Was I unclear about the fact that I was mocking this particular rule, as
inappropriate? Or is it the word "moderation" or the concept that you find
offensive?

G Faris

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
I do believe that in the times we live in, it is reasonable to expect a
few
new rules, and in fact we should desire to participate in new rulemaking.

Your beliefs are ill-placed. None of the new rules are making us safer, and
the old rules failed to do so not because the rules themselves were
insufficient, but rather because those in charge of implementing them failed
to do so.

If and when the government is availing themselves of *existing* rules, and
if and when those rules prove insufficient, then we can talk about what new
rules to create. But not until then, and when we do, only rules that
actually create a net benefit should be considered.

Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember, these
new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.
They are examples of new rules not making sense to practically anyone who
has actually taken the time to be educated about the issues (you can fool
lots of ignorant people into thinking the rule makes sense, but those people
are not worthy of consideration).

but then the old ones sometimes didn't either.

Past failure is an excuse for future failure?

I suppose when a building or bridge collapses due to an engineering failure,
we should just say "well, that's the way it goes...let's build the new one
just like we built the old one".

Was I unclear about the fact that I was mocking this particular rule, as
inappropriate? Or is it the word "moderation" or the concept that you find
offensive?

I find your docile willingness to agree to whatever ridiculous government
rulemaking it cares to pursue offensive.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember, these
new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.

I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true purpose of the rule.
European governments (especially Britain) have been complaining for years about the
fact that American flight schools are much cheaper than European ones. I think that
this particular rule is an attempt to placate foreign governments by making it more
difficult for their citizens to train over here. I agree that it doesn't make sense
as a security measure.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true
purpose of the rule.

I didn't think it necessary to qualify "make sense" to mean "make sense for
the purpose being claimed by the rule makers".

Peter Duniho wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true
purpose of the rule.

I didn't think it necessary to qualify "make sense" to mean "make sense for
the purpose being claimed by the rule makers".

You have a bad tendency to take any comment as a statement that you did something
wrong. You really ought to work on that.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
You have a bad tendency to take any comment as a statement that you did
something
wrong. You really ought to work on that.

Really? I'm so fortunate to have someone like you looking out for me, to
tell me what I ought to "work on".

As far as this example goes, well let's see. I posted that I don't think
it's wrong to expect new rules to make sense. You replied *to my post*, not
to any other one, saying that most new rules DO make sense, when the clear
implication of my post was that I felt many (or even most) new rules do not
make sense.

How am I not supposed to take that as a direct contradiction of my own post?

And of course, your most recent post, to which I'm replying now, is also a
clear example of a statement that I "did something wrong".

Seems to me that it would be just as useful, if not more so, for you to take
a moment to consider what your statements mean in context, rather than being
surprised when someone takes them as criticism or disagreement.

Pete

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Peter Duniho wrote:

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember,
these
new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.

I think that most rules make sense if you understand the true purpose of
the rule.
European governments (especially Britain) have been complaining for years
about the
fact that American flight schools are much cheaper than European ones. I
think that
this particular rule is an attempt to placate foreign governments by
making it more
difficult for their citizens to train over here. I agree that it doesn't
make sense
as a security measure.

I wish our flight schools had that degree of power. If they had they would
be better off getting the price of AVGAS down to $3 a gallon instead of the
$7.50 it currently is.

That would solve the cost issue at a stroke and no stupid rules either.

In article ,
says...

If and when the government is availing themselves of *existing* rules, and
if and when those rules prove insufficient, then we can talk about what new
rules to create. But not until then, and when we do, only rules that
actually create a net benefit should be considered.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I know
you're not a legislator!!



Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense?


OK - and well said.



I find your docile willingness to agree to whatever ridiculous government
rulemaking it cares to pursue offensive.


And yet I don't propose to accept everything that comes down the pipeline. I
find the fingerprinting rule ridiculous - Barbie and Ken security measures,
and I thought I said so. I just think it's better to meet them head on, and
try to propose better rules. I see it as an aggressive stance, more than the
"take it lying down" attitude you read. What scares me most though is the sort
of "above the law" "these are our rights" attitude. "This is the way it was
when Pa showed me my first aeroplane, so this is how it's gonna be". To me
that's a loser's argument, and unfortunately I encounter it too often in these
groups (though not suggesting this is what I read in your posts).

G Faris

Peter Duniho wrote:

Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense?

Turn this around, too. Adding rules has a cost. Implementing rules has a
cost. If the new rules make no sense - or don't help address the problem -
then they take away value that might be spent on something that does work.
Value spent on bad rules is time not spent on effective rules.

In other words, ineffective rules decrease security.

- Andrew