TSA has a fan

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

Peter Duniho wrote:

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".

Yep, sure is.

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
...
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".

Yep, sure is.

So, if you want me to stop interpreting your posts as a statement that I
"did something wrong", you need to stop posting posts that are statements
that I "did something wrong".

It's pretty simple, really.

Peter Duniho wrote:

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

Yep, sure is.

So, if you want me to stop interpreting your posts as a statement that I
"did something wrong", you need to stop posting posts that are statements
that I "did something wrong".

It's pretty simple, really.

No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts are critical and
which are not.

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
...


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.