From: email@example.com (Scott Odle) Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 28 Oct 96 03:06:32 References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.2176@ohare.Chicago.COM>, firstname.lastname@example.org says... >>Basing you decision on a book is very shortsighted. > >Yeah, all it indicates is that someone did their homework and went through >a careful reasoning process. Can't have that. Better to get it off the >cartoonish reality of the 6 o'clock news. Ah, a patch was developed. >That's the end of that! No need for additional oversight. Was the author or you directly involved in the modification the you call a patch. Don't bother to answer because I know the answer is that you were not. I know this since I work in a ACO that was directly involved in the approval of the modification. A careful reasoning process is no match for extensive ground and flight tests under very controlled conditions. So you can make all the claims you want about it just being a patch, but that still won't make your comments or the authors claims any more factual. If you don't bother (and from your posts it appears you did not even think about trying) to substantiate his or your so-called claims before citing it as fact, the only thing that you accomplish is to tarnish your own credibility.