Originally Posted by
essxjay
Well, TB may alter the scope of discussion if they wish, of course.
"Requiring" photographic support? This makes no sense. We have no such requirement now nor is it being suggested.
Nice twist of definition.
The subtopic you replied to was about a thread on the AA forum about new J seats that went on for weeks (and pages and pages). Getting a couple of photos in the mix helped clear up a lot of questions/mispostings. And so yes, that thread "required" photographic support to get a point across concisely.
Nowhere are we talking about the TOS or any other kind of "requirement" so maybe it would please the philosopher if I rephrased that as "Trip Reports or Any Other Travel-Related Subject on FT Where Photographic Support Increases Understanding or Knowledge of the Subject Matter at Hand"
So now maybe you want to split that hair?
