"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
Correct. And "effectively banned" is different from "banned".

How so? Have you actually looked at the definition of "effectively"?
All the word implies is that a ban is in place without it being overt.
A nominal ban would be an actual regulation that says "no GA aircraft
allowed". An "effective ban" is one that does the same thing, through
other means.

I think the OP was using "effectively banned" to mean "so dissuaided
that most spam cans avoid the airport". I find this usage to be
accurately descriptive and helps make his point.

He hasn't stated that was his usage. However, if it was, it's
contrary to the definition of "effectively".

I will agree that redefining after the fact the terms one uses helps
one make one's point. It's a common tactic for people who say one
thing, but either mean something else or find that what they
originally meant wasn't correct in the first place.

Your usage ("a price at which light GA aircraft would =never= use")
is another reasonable definition, and makes your (different) point.

My definition matches the actual definition of "effectively".


From the dictionary definition of "effectively", including the
dictionary's usage example:

"For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held
out, the fighting was effectively ended."


The definition does NOT equate "effectively" with "absolutely",
"totally", "completely", etc. A combination of landing & ramp fees will
effectively, but not totally, ban GA traffic.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)