>>>>>And I'm the unbeliever here... you've just broken the unwritten rule: when something is said to be for security reasons, nobody ever asks any questions about it. I really didn't expect anyone to respond to the above, because nobody ever does. I tried this before, and it always worked.
>>>>
>>>>I knew exactly what you meant, but I disagreed. There are rules for safety reasons and they are not a bad thing. Do I want the teachers and staff not to pay attention to where she is during the day? Do I want to know that there is a process in place to ensure that strangers do not enter the school? Yes. Do I think that not allowing wheel bags makes sense. No. Some rules makes sense, others don't. They are not all bad nor is everyone who claims that there are safety issues a neo-conservative who eats Wacko Wheaties for breakfast and believes that Ann Coulter should run for president. Though sometimes I think you believe all that. That's why I didn't respond.
>>>
>>>We're onto a middle ground here - the kids should be safe at school, period. There should be some rules to that effect, yes.
>>>
>>>The point I'm trying to make... well, two points. One is that if the purpose of, or the reason behind a rule is not clear, it will not be observed as a regular rule of conduct. It will have to be enforced, and the enforcers will not be welcome - which means you don't get cooperation from those you're supposed to protect.
>>>
>>>The other point is that so many of those rules are made to cover a few cases which happen to select morons once upon every other blue moon, but then everybody has to abide every day (and yes, "on the daily basis" too), and then everybody feels not only like that moron, but mistrusted as well. Everyone's a terrorist until fully searched?
>>>
>>>But it's the local politics, PTAs and whatnot who do think this way, and they are on the school boards, they get elected selling safety - and the society at large buys it. Too many rules will (or at least should) breed resistance, resistance will (same note) breed reaction (*), reaction will breed new rules, and that book of rules will add a few pounds to the backpack.
>>>
>>>(*) I think I've heard of at least one case where the kids have done something completely harmless, but noisy or smelly or visible - just on a bet that there will soon be a new rule against that. They won.
>>
>>Ok, we're not as far apart on this as I thought then.
>>
>>Funny, I'm sitting in a coffee shop listening to a cackle of women who belong to a sales "club" or "group" or something, and they have just spent last hour (!) trying to decide how many times a guest should come before they can be invited to be a member. They are just talking about rules. I actually have no idea what they actually "do" because they have only discussed stupid crap like that. But they seem pretty happpy, so what's the harm if they waste their time? It reminds me of meetings I've attended of PTA and school administrative meetings.
>>
>>Update: Yea! They just decided that it would be 3 times. Doh! Wait - now they're dicussing about extenuatiing circumstances...
>>
>>Update2: Reminds me of this drinking game I used to play with a bunch of Irish buddies when I lived in NYC: http://www.stusoc.cf.ac.uk/suon/korfball/drinking/general.html
>
>Sorry but that sounds like a crock. What's the point?

You mean the game? I don't think there was a real point. They taught it to me and I think it was just a way to spend time while drinking. C'mon, they were Irish!