>>>>>>I will say, I hate rules that seem to have no purpose, but if it's regarding safety, I'm ok with that. Never saw it as oppression though.
>>>>>
>>>>>- why did the chicken cross the road?
>>>>>
>>>>>- for security reasons
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why did the baby cross the road?
>>>>
>>>>Cos it was stapled to the chicken's foot.
>>>
>>>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.
>
>
>I am responding only to the last part of your message. Dragan is IMO about the sanest among us. He sure isn't naive.

My point was that I believe he can be as biased as anyone else. Sanity has nothing to do with it, but understand what you mean.