Sorry, I've been attempting to emulate the mental processes
of a Democrat.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "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
|
|