If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
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 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
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) |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
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. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
I give up, after many, many years!
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DC-3 parts to give away | Robert Little | Restoration | 2 | November 23rd 06 03:30 AM |
Who can give a checkout? | Mark S Conway | General Aviation | 2 | May 9th 05 12:15 AM |
Winch give-away | KP | Soaring | 6 | January 11th 05 08:04 PM |
Did you ever give up on an IR? | No Such User | Piloting | 24 | November 26th 03 02:45 PM |
FS 2004 give away | Ozzie M | Simulators | 0 | November 23rd 03 03:50 PM |