Originally Posted by
halls120
You said the SOP wasn't changed, and then you described how it was changed.
You can't have it both ways.
Are "large sums of cash" WEI?
So the SOP has been changed, correct?
It defies logic for you to say "Now it is put in the SOP that it is not illegal" and "SOP was not changed."
Amazing.
It defies logic because of the way in which you purposefully choose to read what I wrote.
I noticed in your first post when you quote me who ignore part of what I wrote:
Originally Posted by SATTSO
No, the SOP was not changed, in the sense we are talking about.
You highlight "the SOP was not changed" but ignore the rest of the sentence. Why is that?
I guess I need to speak a little more clear for you, so I will do so:
the previous SOP had us report large sums of cash to LEOs. The current SOP requires us to report large sums of cash to LEOs. The wording of the SOP changed, and that added that carrying cash is not illegal. But the MEANING or DIRECTIVE of the SOP has nit changed.
But I guess you want to argue semantics if the word "changed", because that's all you can argue? Perhaps you should attempt to argue that the SOP the directs the actions of the TSO has changed, as that would be the actual purpose of what I was talking about? But we know you can't do that, right?
