On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
Hank, you'll never get away with that! Not only is your post a reprised rebuttal in itself making your comment that no one need reply sorta funny, but your contention that reducing FLARM range is not anti safety is pretty dubious! That's exactly why this is being so hotly debated.

Sorry Andrew, I guess my writing was not clear enough. I was simply stating that I do not see an anti Flarm positions being brought forth. I do see some that want limitations to tactical Flarm radar.
I described my personal ideal view, but did not make and case for how it could or would be done. This is a complex issue that is far from black and white.
Cheers
UH

Yes, this is a complex issue that requires time.