"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:Z6vmg.49402$ZW3.30156@dukeread04...
"Matt Whiting" wrote:
Jim Macklin wrote:
No, do I need a credible reference?

Only if you want us to believe you as what you are saying goes against
everything most of us have seen published in the literature.

I don't care what you believe.

You're a CFI, so we care what your students are led to believe.

Maybe I just wanted a heated discussion to start,

Uh, sure Jim. But there's been little heated discussion. Several of us have
just been patiently explaining to you an elementary aspect of aviation.

If the tail does not stall, to some degree, what tail down
force ceases to exist to maintain the nose up attitude?

That's a perfectly reasonable question, and it's been answered for you at
least five times in this thread. (Hint: search for "relative wind".) Each
time, you've simply *ignored* the answer without even *trying* to point out
any flaw in it.

Your approach to discussing aviation is the same as your approach to
discussing politics. In both domains, you're willing to engage in debate *as
long as it just rehashes material that's already familiar to you*. But as
soon as anyone raises an objection that you hadn't previously considered,
you just ignore it and retreat to familiar ground, repeating the claims that
the objection already defeated, making no attempt to refute the objection.

Unfortunately, that approach completely defeats the purpose of rational
discourse, because it renders your beliefs incorrigible. Perversely, you're
left with the illusion that you've sustained your position; but the reality
is that you merely went through the motions of rational discourse until just
before the point where a meaningful exchange of ideas would begin.

--Gary