I give up, after many, many years!

On May 13, 6:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
More_Flaps wrote :



On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps wrote:

On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

More_Flaps writes:
I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal
attack.

Same thing.

Nope.

Not to nit-pick, but:

"Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post)"

Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:

"Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since
the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a
logical inference is independent of the person making the inference.
However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal
syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic
and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a
large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including
eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a
purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that
a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a
major role in making judgements from evidence.
Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in
which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the
authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence,
while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by
showing that the person making the assertion does not have the
authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken
assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an
infallible counterargument."

Cheers

The guy who wrote that is an asshole.

You know him/her?

Cheers

More_Flaps wrote in
:

On May 13, 6:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
More_Flaps wrote
innews:1d5a7be3-2bc1-461d-ac47-c4e9
:



On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps wrote:

On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

More_Flaps writes:
I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal
attack.

Same thing.

Nope.

Not to nit-pick, but:

"Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem,
Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together"
(Washington Post)"

Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:

"Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic,
since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the
validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making
the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented
as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of
informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of
evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the
credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert
witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is
unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert
witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making
judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of
argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth
value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of
the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may
make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person
making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or
position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar
topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible
counterargument."

Cheers

The guy who wrote that is an asshole.

You know him/her?

Cheers



I'm a pearl before swine..


Bertie

On May 13, 7:17*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
More_Flaps wrote :





On May 13, 6:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
More_Flaps wrote
innews:1d5a7be3-2bc1-461d-ac47-c4e9
:

On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps wrote:

On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

More_Flaps writes:
I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple personal
attack.

Same thing.

Nope.

Not to nit-pick, but:

"Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem,
Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together"
(Washington Post)"

Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:

"Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic,
since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the
validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making
the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented
as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of
informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of
evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the
credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert
witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is
unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert
witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making
judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of
argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth
value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of
the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may
make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person
making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or
position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar
topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible
counterargument."

Cheers

The guy who wrote that is an asshole.

You know him/her?

Cheers

I'm a pearl before swine..


Sorry, I thought you were being a "master troll". In any case, that
should be an opal before bunyi.

Cheers

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:09:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:





One of my favorite quotations of all time is this. Gregory Peck, when he
had just hit the big time in the early fifties, and his gang showed up
at a fancy restaurant. The Maitre'd informed them it would be some time
before they could be seated. One of his entourage stepped up to the
Maitre'd and said, excuse me, but do you know who this is?" Peck pulled
him aside and said to him "If ya gotta tell 'em who you are, you ain't"
I think of this every time I see a guy with watch with 47 functions on
it.

Bertie

my criteria for a flying watch was borne of absolute necessity. it is
that the face is plain enough that I can reliably read the time in no
more than a glance. ...because that is as long a period as you get.

my 3 watches are in the seconds per week accuracy range, quartz
movements, all three cost under $75 and in fact two of them together
cost under $60.

they are actual flying watches.

I've never been able to ever get anyone to believe me that that is
actually what you need in a flying watch.
two were made by loris and one by swatch.

how the hell could you ever read a 47 function watch in teeth shaking
turbulence?
zulu time in the little window???? that's what the watch on the odd
side wrist is set to!

Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:09:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:





One of my favorite quotations of all time is this. Gregory Peck, when
he
had just hit the big time in the early fifties, and his gang showed up
at a fancy restaurant. The Maitre'd informed them it would be some
time
before they could be seated. One of his entourage stepped up to the
Maitre'd and said, excuse me, but do you know who this is?" Peck
pulled
him aside and said to him "If ya gotta tell 'em who you are, you
ain't"
I think of this every time I see a guy with watch with 47 functions on
it.

Bertie

my criteria for a flying watch was borne of absolute necessity. it is
that the face is plain enough that I can reliably read the time in no
more than a glance. ...because that is as long a period as you get.

my 3 watches are in the seconds per week accuracy range, quartz
movements, all three cost under $75 and in fact two of them together
cost under $60.

they are actual flying watches.

I've never been able to ever get anyone to believe me that that is
actually what you need in a flying watch.
two were made by loris and one by swatch.

how the hell could you ever read a 47 function watch in teeth shaking
turbulence?
zulu time in the little window???? that's what the watch on the odd
side wrist is set to!

Well, I only use the airplane's clock in flight, and there's precious
little need for that these days ( I was recently asked why I punch the
stopwatch passing the marker by a training captain not too long ago) The
wris****ch is only as a backup in flight. It doesn't have a stop watch
function at all, though I probably would have one if the airplane didn't
have one for flying instruments.


Bertie

More_Flaps wrote in
:

On May 13, 7:17*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
More_Flaps wrote
innews:33a93fff-3e7f-4e94-b273-8e7e
:





On May 13, 6:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
More_Flaps wrote
innews:1d5a7be3-2bc1-461d-ac47-c4e9
:

On May 13, 10:37*am, Le Chaud Lapin
wrote:
On May 12, 5:11*pm, More_Flaps wrote:

On May 13, 9:51*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

More_Flaps writes:
I think you are MXing up an ad hominem with simple
personal attack.

Same thing.

Nope.

Not to nit-pick, but:

"Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting
personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem,
Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together"
(Washington Post)"

Here you go, a better definition than the washington pist:

"Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic,
since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the
validity of a logical inference is independent of the person
making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely
presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the
domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The
theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of
the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and
expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is
unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported
expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role
in making judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the
inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases
the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or
position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem
argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that
the person making the assertion does not have the authority,
knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken
assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an
infallible counterargument."

Cheers

The guy who wrote that is an asshole.

You know him/her?

Cheers

I'm a pearl before swine..


Sorry, I thought you were being a "master troll". In any case, that
should be an opal before bunyi.

I was! It's a fukkin joke!


Bertie

On May 13, 6:01*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Well, I only use the airplane's clock in flight, and there's precious
little need for that these days ( I was recently asked why I punch the
stopwatch passing the marker by a training captain not too long ago) The
wris****ch is only as a backup in flight. It doesn't have a stop watch
function at all, though I probably would have one if the airplane didn't
have one for flying instruments.

The Boeings have nice clocks although like you said, they dont get
used much. All the holds are DME based and I cant remember the last
time anyone here timed an approach. I do wear a $30 timex, but thats
just to make sure I show up on time. It is actually a whatch someone
on this list recomended (I knew I wasnt just waisting my time on this
list).
F Baum

More_Flaps writes:

Nope, still not the same -as supported by the reference you gave. Ad
hominem is an abbreviation for Argumentum ad hominem ...

= argument against the man (personal attack)

Stealth Pilot writes:

my criteria for a flying watch was borne of absolute necessity. it is
that the face is plain enough that I can reliably read the time in no
more than a glance. ...because that is as long a period as you get.

Interesting ... that'll make a good topic for discussion; I'll try it.

Stealth Pilot wrote:

how the hell could you ever read a 47 function watch in teeth shaking
turbulence?
zulu time in the little window???? that's what the watch on the odd
side wrist is set to!

Stealth Pilot

My wife got me a Citizen this Christmas nice BIG numbers with for hands
on it. The three obvious plus a fourth smaller that points at the
imbeded zulu scale. I like it a lot. Very easy to read (except the
date)under all conditions short of long term total darkness.