TSA has a fan

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

I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.

In article ,
says...
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts
are critical and which are not.

I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.



OK guys, enough already.
DCMac

"Peter Duniho" wrote

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
No, *you* need to make some intelligent decisons about which posts
are critical and which are not.

I do. If you weren't so critical of me, you'd see that.

Probably not much can be added to an exchange that has degenerated
this far. But I can't resist offering the suggestion that the cause of
the degeneration might have been just a misunderstanding about what
was meant by "the new TSA rules make sense". One of you took the
meaning as "the new TSA rules are understandable", and the other took
the meaning as "the new TSA rules are good".

Aside to George and Pete: usually I enjoy reading each of your posts,
as they are often interesting and informative.

Jim Rosinski