Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More inane arguing...please, just ignore - WAS - RE: filmscanners: X-ray and digital camera
Austin writes:
> Did you ever think that the "hoax" that you
> claim was inaccurate for ONLY those airlines,
> and that for another airline it may have been
> true? No, of course not.
It would be an illogical extrapolation. If it is untrue for one aircraft, the
one actually named, and if there is no evidence of it ever having been true for
any other aircraft, then it is logical to assume that it is untrue for all
aircraft, until and unless some clear evidence to the contrary comes to light.
> Answering my queries with questions is unacceptable.
You seemed to consider them acceptable when you asked them of me. Why do you
hold yourself to standards different from those to which you hold others?
> You failed to provide any substantiation to your
> claim, so I must dismiss it.
What claim? The claim that tray tables were dangerous was not mine; I simply
pointed out that there is no basis for the claim.
> I know the source or the internal corporate
> report I was privy to, and it is a far more
> respected and reliable source than you are.
That may help you, but it doesn't help anyone else, since you will not share
this information.
> Being a corporate internal report, no one outside
> the company (Digital Equipment Corporation) would
> have been privy to it, and it was not for external
> release.
Then it is not admissible as evidence in this discussion. Your own assertions
of its existence are no more valid than anyone else's assertions that it does
not.
> Sorry. You may believe what you want, and I will
> know what I know.
If you think that I will feel persuaded by your mere assertion of knowledge (as
opposed to proof of knowledge), you are mistaken, and I am quite sure that I am
not alone in this respect.
> Yes, but you have no facts.
Neither do you. However, anyone can do a search on the Web and find a mountain
of information corroborating what I have said, and none that corroborates what
you have said.
> My sources are respected and reliable, so they
> are correct ...
Only to you. I don't even see your sources identified, so why would I consider
them reliable and respected simply because you believe them so?
> ... and your research is unacceptable by any
> scientific means.
What research? I haven't done any experiments, I've simply inquired directly of
the parties concerned, and they have confirmed that the hoax is indeed a hoax.
> I think you believe you have.
So do most other people with whom I've shared the results I've obtained. My
goal is to reduce ignorance, and I achieve that to a significant degree.
> Yes, but your research or your conclusion is
> erroneous or incomplete.
Please show the error or lack of completeness in what I've said.
> You obviously are not a scientist, but you
> want to believe you are.
You appear to be unfamiliar with the principles of debate; the more you post,
the more you erode your own position.
As I've said, anyone can verify all this for himself, and those who have will
know which of us is more objectively correct with respect to this topic.
> You did not answer my questions.
I'm not currently consulting to anyone. I'm not sure why you would speculate
otherwise, since I've given no indication of doing such work.
> You do not share accurate and informed knowledge.
Since I obtained my information directly from the named sources (Airbus, IATA),
I don't see how it could have been any more accurated or informed. If Airbus
does not know how the A340 is built, who does? I don't think Digital Equipment
Corporation would be much of an authority on Airbus construction.
|
