Well, as the idiot who apparently inspired this thread, i thought i'd let it run for a while before i chimed in; i'm so much of a relativist (often to my own chagrin), that simply saying "rules/laws must be followed" usually doesn't cut it for me, because i can think of so many instances where it's be wrong to follow the rules/laws; having said that, i don't think they should be disregarded in their entirety, or it would literally be chaos; so how to decide? can't say i have a good answer to that, but somehow i think we all look at the equities involved in each situation (including those imputed to obeying the rules); let me put a twist on the situation; say an airline breaches the contract of carriage and screws you over (e.g. puts you on a bus instead of a plane and offers no compensation whatsoever-- it happened to me); your only recourse is to sue in small claims court, hardly an attractive option; would that justify you in somehow trying to "get over" on the carrier at a later date in an amount roughly comparable to the injustice it inflicted upon you? simply throwing out "2 wrongs don't make it right" isn't going to convince me; i'll throw out "an eye for an eye" and we'll be drowning in cliches; i'm interested in people thoughts; the 2 threads have been intereting; And Premex2000, I'd be interested in hearing why you believe bartering doesn't violate rule 8 ...