Originally Posted by Ari

What you write above is a legitimate arguement.

Your example was flawed-- it showed a "victim" of a policy complaining about its violation. Of course someone who loses an upgrade to someone else based on a violation of policy is going to be pissed off and not think it is acceptable. In the example of the cell phone during taxi-out, no one is hurt (assuming you are able to extrapolate that the "harm" done is the same as during taxi in, something some here are unable to do so they attempt to justify it with other arguments and refuse to address it directly ).

The best example would be speeding 56mph in a 55mph zone. The 3am stoplight example is good, but it still has potential to cause injury if someone doesn't look carefully-- the 56 in a 55 is more akin to the harm done by using a cell phone after the door is closed but before takeoff-- ie. very speculative harm potential and unlikely to make any difference, like going 1mph over the limit).