"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from earlier
posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above stall" speed.

Not without a clear definition of "well above" (so far, none has been
offered). And even if your own personal definition of "well above" is any
airspeed at which the stall warning isn't sounding, any airplane can be
landed safely without the stall warning going off, and many airplanes
*should* be landed without the stall warning going off.

The absence of a stall warning does not in and of itself suggest an unsafe
landing.

"Descending" is uninformative about the actual attitude or speed of the
aircraft,

It's about as uninformative as phrases like "well above" and "good flying
speed". So what?

You guys are engaged in a blatant double-standard in which your own
ambiguous terminology is apparently acceptable, while someone else's is
grounds for abuse.

and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire thread if
you wish to object to some response to it.

I have read through the entire thread, and the assumptions you and others
have made about statements made by Mxsmanic are just that: assumptions. You
have no reason for making the inference that you have, other than to find a
point of leverage for criticism. If you weren't so predisposed to attacking
the guy, you never would have made such assumptions.

Ironically, in making those assumptions, you are also posting your own vague
and potentially incorrect statements. Those statements are the ones to
which I'm responding. If it's fair game for you to infer arbitrary meaning
in someone else's ambiguous terminology, why is it not fair for me to do so?

Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is incorrect,
then correct it. So far, neither you nor anyone else has, in spite of my
clear description of the inference that I've made. I've made clear the
context in which my statements are made, including stating the inferences of
the meaning of others' ambiguous statements. There's nothing wrong with my
statements as is, so if you want to disagree, you need to clarify the
meaning of your own ambiguous statements.

Pete