Bertie the Bunyip
October 28th 04, 05:35 PM
"AbsolutelyCertain" > wrote in
:
>
> "Nik" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "AbsolutelyCertain" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > My opinion on the AA587 situation was posted here a long time ago.
>> > If
> you
>> > paid as much attention to the details in here as you do to the
>> > study of stop
>> > signs ......you'd know what I said. Let me paraphrase: They ought
>> > to ****ing be able to design and build airplanes that can't be
>> > broken with control inputs at, near, or below maneuvering speed.
>> > If they build an airplane that can't meet that requirement, then
>> > they need to plaster the warnings all over everything and beat the
>> > operators to train
> accordingly.
>> >
>> > Now that they've "blamed" the pilot for doing what he thought was
>> > an ordinary thing, I hope they feel better. I think it sucks.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I find that you express you opinions with a degree of certainty that
>> might compete well with the degree of certainty that Billy Graham has
>> in the Bible...
>
> Really? Show me, please, the "degree of certainty" indices that you
> find in the cited blurb, above. Tell me how you calibrated these and
> arrived at your conclusion.
>
> The whole thing is framed with the words "my opinion" and "I think",
> phrases which you will find at its beginning, and end.
>
> Those are clues that the blurb is in fact nothing more or less than an
> opinion. If you disagree with it, feel free to make an argument.
>
> Keep in mind that the blurb is, in context, speech to another poster
> in the middle of a prolonged and rather unpleasant feud. Keep in mind
> that at the end of the day, that speech, and that feud, are none of
> your ****ing business.
>
Tha's Nikky the nzi, my old buddy, Paul. Try to be nice to him, because,
well, you know.
Bertie
:
>
> "Nik" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "AbsolutelyCertain" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > My opinion on the AA587 situation was posted here a long time ago.
>> > If
> you
>> > paid as much attention to the details in here as you do to the
>> > study of stop
>> > signs ......you'd know what I said. Let me paraphrase: They ought
>> > to ****ing be able to design and build airplanes that can't be
>> > broken with control inputs at, near, or below maneuvering speed.
>> > If they build an airplane that can't meet that requirement, then
>> > they need to plaster the warnings all over everything and beat the
>> > operators to train
> accordingly.
>> >
>> > Now that they've "blamed" the pilot for doing what he thought was
>> > an ordinary thing, I hope they feel better. I think it sucks.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I find that you express you opinions with a degree of certainty that
>> might compete well with the degree of certainty that Billy Graham has
>> in the Bible...
>
> Really? Show me, please, the "degree of certainty" indices that you
> find in the cited blurb, above. Tell me how you calibrated these and
> arrived at your conclusion.
>
> The whole thing is framed with the words "my opinion" and "I think",
> phrases which you will find at its beginning, and end.
>
> Those are clues that the blurb is in fact nothing more or less than an
> opinion. If you disagree with it, feel free to make an argument.
>
> Keep in mind that the blurb is, in context, speech to another poster
> in the middle of a prolonged and rather unpleasant feud. Keep in mind
> that at the end of the day, that speech, and that feud, are none of
> your ****ing business.
>
Tha's Nikky the nzi, my old buddy, Paul. Try to be nice to him, because,
well, you know.
Bertie