Commander’s Signature

[mikeylikey]

I tend (when not in command!) to follow the school of thought "if it is not explicitly prohibited, it's authorized"!!!

Go ahead and see how far that gets you in life!

[LTC_Gadget]

I tend (when not in command!) to follow the school of thought "if it is not explicitly prohibited, it's authorized"!!!

Actually, after comparing notes with a Navy Chief, we informally came to the conclusion that that approximates Navy thinking, while AF thinking is closer to "if it is not explicitly authorized, it's prohibited." Your mileage may vary, of course...

V/R,

[ZigZag911]

I tend (when not in command!) to follow the school of thought "if it is not explicitly prohibited, it's authorized"!!!

Actually, after comparing notes with a Navy Chief, we informally came to the conclusion that that approximates Navy thinking, while AF thinking is closer to "if it is not explicitly authorized, it's prohibited." Your mileage may vary, of course...

V/R,

True enough...but then again, most of the time we're not on AFAMs, hence not USAF Aux....so, as they'd say over on The Admiral's Check-in thread, "any port in a storm"!

[JohnKachenmeister]

The Rules According To Kachenmeister:

1.  If it is not specifically prohibited, it is authorized.

2.  If it IS specifically prohibited, but there is no mechanism in place to catch violators, it is authorized.

3.  If it IS prohibited, AND there is a mechanism in place to catch violators, but you think you can come up with a plausible excuse, it is authorized.

4.  If a regulation is so poorly written that it can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, they way that most closely matches what it is you want to do is the correct interpretation.

And, the Golden Rule:

"It is easier to apologize afterward than to seek permission before."

[ZigZag911]

The Rules According To Kachenmeister:

1.  If it is not specifically prohibited, it is authorized.

2.  If it IS specifically prohibited, but there is no mechanism in place to catch violators, it is authorized.

3.  If it IS prohibited, AND there is a mechanism in place to catch violators, but you think you can come up with a plausible excuse, it is authorized.

4.  If a regulation is so poorly written that it can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, they way that most closely matches what it is you want to do is the correct interpretation.

And, the Golden Rule:

"It is easier to apologize afterward than to seek permission before."

A man after my own heart!

I presume you subscribe to Murphy's Laws. Axioms, & Corollaries?