Re: More foolish arguing over silly seat trays - was RE: filmscanners: X-ray and digital camera

["Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>]

Austin writes:

> There is no fallacy in my "technique" (much your
> claim of "another", since you have never claimed
> a first), just because I know that you are wrong, and
> that you do not know what you are talking about.

There are several fallacies in this statement alone.  There is a personal
attack, and an assertion that something is true because you say so.  Both of
these are fallacious.

> Completely foolish statement.  How can one contact
> EVERY airline was in service back in 1993/4 and ask
> them?

Why would anyone do so, when there is no reason to believe that such trays exist
in the first place?  There is only this hoax.

> As if you are going to call the airline, and get
> an accurate answer to this question too.  That's
> just plain foolish.  Like they are REALLY going to
> come forward.

Do you think they are conspiring to conceal the Awful Truth from us?  If so,
upon what basis do you so conclude?

> I did.  There were many flaws with that article.

List a few.

> Oh, just because YOU say it was not, then we
> should all just believe it.

No; you are mistaking my technique for your own (see your example above).

By default, there is no reason to believe something for which there is no
evidence.

> I know the report existed.

But I do not.

> I also know that because something is reported on
> the Internet it does NOT make it true.

Then why do you defend something that exists only as an Internet hoax?

> Digital has a MUCH higher integrity than a random
> flawed article with unknown sources.

When I see Digital's report, I'll give it due consideration.  However, your mere
assertion that the report exists is valueless.

> As I have stated time and again, you are obviously
> not a scientist, and you wouldn't know or understand
> legitimate research if it bit you in the fact.

I understand logic and debate.

> It is amazing to me how you will continue to claim
> something is wrong, that I know is absolutely true.

All of the evidence presented here shows it to be untrue, whereas we have only
your assertions that it is true, minus the evidence.  What conclusion do you
expect me to reach, given these facts?

> You have been shown to be wrong time and time
> again, yet you continue to make absurd claims,
> so much so that most people can't take you seriously.

I'm not aware of having been wrong--can you provide some examples?  I also have
seen no evidence to indicate that I am not being taken seriously.

> Care to put your money where your mouth is?

I do not gamble.

> I will research this.  If I am right, you will pay
> me $150/hour for what ever time it takes me to research
> this.

No.  There are too many details missing in your proposition, and in any case,
the topic doesn't interest me enough to be worth money, either spent or earned.

> Since you know you are right, you have nothing
> to lose, now do you?  I am the only one with
> anything to lose.

I know how contracts and specifications are written.

> Yes, exactly.  That's why the "article" that was
> cited by you is "highly suspect".

Then why isn't the original hoax message at least as suspect?