Originally Posted by
UA1K4EVER
That is your logic and not mine, so, therefore, I agree: it is a silly argument...
Here's what
you wrote:
...I think that we ultimately must decide what is good for us in an ethical way, i.e., what benefits us without adversely affecting others in the process. It is how I feel about the new CR1 "rule": It [sic] did not invent; I have little control over it; AND it does not take away from my ability to get the most out of my limited travel funds...but it opens up to the 1Ps to which it had been previously closed, so it is a net positive...IME.
So, if I misunderstood, I apologize. Why don't you clarify, then, exactly how in the case of CR-1s we're supposed to, in
your words, "decide what is good for us in an ethical way."