A Google Groups alternative to rec.aviation.piloting?

buttman writes:

Huh? Claims never need to be backed up? Backing up your claims is
analogous to showing your work on a math problem.

Showing your work is not the same as pointing to a book.

Most people in these situations want the person with whom they disagree to
point to a book or other outside reference. They fully do not expect to get
the reference, which allows them to to claim that the opinion with which they
disagree is baseless. If they get a reference, they claim that the reference
doesn't meet some arbitrary standard of reliability. Overall, it's just a
diversion.

It's also possible to support an argument by simply exposing the reasoning
behind it, proceeding forward from universally accepted premises ("showing
your work"), but in these situations people will not accept this, because they
know that it is hard to refute. They want an outside reference that they hope
they won't get, and they plan to reject the reference if by some chance they
do actually get it. It's much harder to argue with logic, so that is rejected
from the beginning.

It shows the processes you used to come to your conclusion.

Rest assured, most people will not accept the processes, as they don't want to
have their opinion challenged at all. They are not giving you an opportunity
to persuade them, they are simply rejecting summarily and feigning a desire to
let you persuade them. The request for a reference is classic for this
purpose because it's always possible to reject a reference for one reason or
another. That isn't possible if you start with accepted axioms and reason
forward from them.

What I was criticizing "a few posts ago", was arguments hinged solely
on character. This tangent that has popped up may be related to
people's character, but you sure won't find me hinging any arguments
solely on someone's character, if thats what you're implying.

A reqeust for references is also based on character, except it shifts the
target from the person making a particular assertion to the person who was the
source of the reference. Since it is still subjective, it can still be
rejected, which is why so many people use this as a diversion.

Ken S. Tucker writes:

Well I think a fella using a handle like "Buttman",
which advertises his homosexuality is hardly
someone I'd wanna be in cockpit with.

Here again, you're making an ad hominem argument. You're talking about the
person, not the topic at hand.

Additionally, "Buttman" could mean all sorts of things, and isn't necessarily
an indication of homosexuality.

And furthermore, not everyone considers adumbration of homosexuality
pejorative, so your thinly veiled insult might well be without effect.

On Aug 16, 9:07 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ken S. Tucker writes:
Well I think a fella using a handle like "Buttman",
which advertises his homosexuality is hardly
someone I'd wanna be in cockpit with.

Here again, you're making an ad hominem argument.

I ain't adding homo's to anything, "buttman"
already did that!!!.

You're talking about the person, not the topic at hand.

Wish you wouldn't have used the phrase "topic at hand",
it's your gooey keyboard.

Additionally, "Buttman" could mean all sorts of things, and isn't necessarily
an indication of homosexuality.

Care to elaborate?

And furthermore, not everyone considers adumbration of homosexuality
pejorative, so your thinly veiled insult might well be without effect.

Well you're the one calling homo's dumb.

Seriously now: Recently we've been writing software
for a lunar mission, and after doing a lunar parking
orbit I/we had problems doing a manual softlanding
within fuel specs, so I installed an algorthm that
AutoLands using about 2 lines of code. There's a
thrill in landing but even more of a thrill seeing the
commands automatically executed, that I designed,
especially since it was so dang simple.
I could explain it if any of you guys want.

Were super excited about Project Constellation so
we're boneing up on details.
Regards
Ken

Thanks for the responses everyone. Every post was informative - believe it
or not! I may actually try creating a Google Groups piloting group as a
final experiment.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Ken S. Tucker writes:

Well I think a fella using a handle like "Buttman",
which advertises his homosexuality is hardly
someone I'd wanna be in cockpit with.

Here again, you're making an ad hominem argument. You're talking
about the person, not the topic at hand.

Additionally, "Buttman" could mean all sorts of things, and isn't
necessarily an indication of homosexuality.

And furthermore, not everyone considers adumbration of homosexuality
pejorative, so your thinly veiled insult might well be without effect.

Are you still playing with little boys Anthony?

Ken S. Tucker writes:

Care to elaborate?

Buttman could refer to someone who enjoys looking at women's buttocks, which
is a highly heterosexual behavior for a man.

Well you're the one calling homo's dumb.

I haven't called homosexuals anything.

On Aug 16, 12:42 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ken S. Tucker writes:
Care to elaborate?

Buttman could refer to someone who enjoys looking at women's buttocks, which
is a highly heterosexual behavior for a man.

Are you speakin' from experience or is that statement
a result of a sim?

Well you're the one calling homo's dumb.

I haven't called homosexuals anything.

So you call them nothing.

Compared to playing golf, or owning a 1/2 assed boat,
flying is still a cheap hobby. What a $100/hr gets you
a rental with a CFI, of course if you "Mx" is an invalid,
then that's different...are you?
Ken

Ken S. Tucker writes:

Are you speakin' from experience or is that statement
a result of a sim?

Neither, it's simply logic.

So you call them nothing.

Right.

Compared to playing golf, or owning a 1/2 assed boat,
flying is still a cheap hobby. What a $100/hr gets you
a rental with a CFI, of course if you "Mx" is an invalid,
then that's different...are you?

I don't understand the question.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On Aug 16, 12:42 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ken S. Tucker writes:
Care to elaborate?

Buttman could refer to someone who enjoys looking at women's
buttocks, which is a highly heterosexual behavior for a man.

Are you speakin' from experience or is that statement
a result of a sim?

Well you're the one calling homo's dumb.

I haven't called homosexuals anything.

So you call them nothing.

Compared to playing golf, or owning a 1/2 assed boat,
flying is still a cheap hobby. What a $100/hr gets you
a rental with a CFI, of course if you "Mx" is an invalid,
then that's different...are you?
Ken


Where does one start?

Bertie

On Aug 16, 1:58 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ken S. Tucker writes:
Are you speakin' from experience or is that statement
a result of a sim?

Neither, it's simply logic.

So you call them nothing.

Right.

Compared to playing golf, or owning a 1/2 assed boat,
flying is still a cheap hobby. What a $100/hr gets you
a rental with a CFI, of course if you "Mx" is an invalid,
then that's different...are you?

I don't understand the question.

Ok, have you ever been in a sail boat?
Ken