Newps writes:

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

"Jim Macklin" writes:

And if you are not IR rated and current, they just put you in
violation of the FAR.
I didn't mention that to avoid opening that can of worms.
I think the answer is, "probably". Probably also always
gets ignored by the FAA from the enforecement standpoint.

You can't be this uninformed. You just can't be.

I analyzed the phraseology in the scenario by the usual syntactic
criteria for meeting an IFR clearance and explained my reasoning.
Then I asked Boston TRACON their opinion (just asked -- without
telling them my theory), and the seem to concur with me.

Neither you (nor the other fellow) have presented any reasoning
nor evidence to contradict this, beyond simply asserting "It's not",
"You're wrong", and the above. My mind is certainly not closed
on the subject, but do you have anything else?
(By which I mean, "Do you have anything?")