He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected, implying future rule breaking was in store.
Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the rule, thereby meaning (according to
DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
> Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the rule,
Not breaking "the" rule, future rule breaking. There's a difference.
According to current flight regulations, arguing about breaking a rule is cause to suspect other rules may be broken later.
> thereby meaning (according to DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule?
Not according to Terretta. According to post 911 flight regulations being followed by the FA and pilot. These new security regulations say someone who objects to authority can be denied travel like "pre-crime" suspects on Minority Report.
> Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Yes, which is why I wrote, "wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another story" about these regulations.
The situation will remain ridiculous until enough people realize this ridiculousness is now policy and needs undoing.
Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the rule, thereby meaning (according to DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?