Matt Whiting wrote in
:

snip
He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the
outcome be different would have required someone else to be flying the
airplane.
Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my
point.

I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact, all
reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a controlled
flight directly into the water. If that's the case, either he was suicidal
or he was disoriented.

snip

The original point - a suggestion that one can improve his/her safety
by using flight following - is completely lost in Steve's
trial-lawyer tactics. The fact remains, however, that even Steve
concedes that simply listening to the proper frequency can improve
situational awareness, and as such the original point is actually
supported by Steve's own arguments.

I disagree. The original point that flight following would have
changed the outcome in this case is completely fallacious. Steven has
his own unique way of pointing that out, but his point is correct
whether you agree with his tactic or not.

Actually, there is no evidence whether his point is correct or not,
regardless of whether you agree with it or whether I disagree with it.
Your agreement is no more evidenciary than my disagreement...

I'm just trying to have a friendly conversation. If I wanted my
words
to be picked apart like the Talmud, I would have become a lawyer or
a Rabbi.

If you didn't want your words to be picked apart, you shouldn't have
posted in a newsgroup. :-)


Oy Vey! Why didn't I see that one coming?