RE: More inane arguing...please, just ignore - WAS - RE: filmscanners: X-ray and digital camera

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

I apologize to the news group for partaking in this utterly foolish game.
This is the last post I will do on "airline trays".


> > 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.

What's illogical, is any discussion with you.

Your statement is completely illogical.  It would make sense that you would
not understand why.

> > 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?

I have only asked questions when they were appropriate.  Your questions were
not appropriate, they did not answer the question asked, they avoided them.

> > 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.

And that is a claim in and of it self.  As I said, you have failed to
provide any legitimate substantiation to your claim, and what little you,
and others, did provide, could not be considered valid by any knowledgeable
stretch of the word.

> > 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.

You can choose to believe me, or not.  That is your choice, no one is
holding a gun to your head to believe me.

> > 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.

Since when is this a "court"?  Hearsay is absolutely admissible here.  You
can choose to believe me or not.  That does not make me or the report right
or wrong.


> > 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 I don't care if you believe me or not, since what you believe is
generally wrong anyway, if you were to believe me, that would offset your
balance.

> > Yes, but you have no facts.
>
> Neither do you.

Well, I do.  I just can't share them with you.  Because YOU haven't seen
them doesn't mean they don't exist.

> 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.

One can find a mountain of evidence proving the existence of Santa Clause on
the web too.


> > My sources are respected and reliable, so they
> > are correct ...
>
> Only to you.  I don't even see your sources identified,

I have identified my sources.  One of the most respected engineering
companies in the entire world.  Your source is your word, as well as some
unknown guy's web site.

> > ... and your research is unacceptable by any
> > scientific means.
>
> What research?  I haven't done any experiments,

I'm sure you haven't done any experiments (except your news group games).
You certainly don't understand the correct way to conduct them, much less
analyze the results.


> 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.

Please name them.

> My
> goal is to reduce ignorance,

Then if this is actually true, you would stop posting.  (Sorry, I couldn't
resist...)

> and I achieve that to a significant degree.

only in your own mind.

>
> > Yes, but your research or your conclusion is
> > erroneous or incomplete.
>
> Please show the error or lack of completeness in what I've said.

There are no sources listed.  What was listed is purely hearsay.  Do draw
any conclusion from that (aside from you can't draw a valid conclusion) is
erroneous.

> > 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.

You do not know what debate is, Anthony, you only know how to argue and
aggravate (which I am sure brings a smile to your face when you know that
you are aggravating people) people.  This is a discussion list, NOT an
"Anthony" debate forum.

> I'm not currently consulting to anyone.

So, you are not working, and have all day to argue with people on the
Internet?

> Since I obtained my information directly from the named sources
> (Airbus, IATA),

I do not believe you.  As I previously asked, and you failed to provide an
answer, whom did you speak with, and when?

> 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.

I have never been talking about Airbuses, Anthony.  Your facts are, again,
amiss.