Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"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.

I agree; I *usually* land before the stall warning goes off. However, that
is not the point, nor does it address the issues raised in this thread in
the context that they were raised.

To keep things simple, the response to the question of the thread -- "Is
every touchdown a stall" is "no". However, I didn't enter the thread at
that stage, and the point where I did enter it was discussion of landing
in a different context. Specifically, I responded to:

Mxsmanic:
" No doubt, but my concern is that a stall is a rapid and significant
loss of lift, and it seems that this would be dangerous with so little
space for maneuvering beneath the aircraft. As long as the aircraft
hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
risky so close to the runway."

You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my reply
that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits of that
comment *out of context*.

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

No one claimed that it does, as yet.

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.

What "double standard" might that be?

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.

Example of such an assumption that I have made, please?

If you
weren't so predisposed to attacking the guy, you never would have
made such assumptions.

I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
you are making that is completely unsubstantiated. If you followed other
threads in this newsgroup, you would know that I've "known" Mxsmanic for
years. In other newsgroups, and in other contexts I have agreed with him
on many occassions. If he has any integrity, he'll confirm this for you if
he reads this. My complaints are specific to some posts that he has made
here, and I have not generalized those complaints into an "attack", as you
are implying.

Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is
incorrect, then correct it.

See above. It's not only "incorrect", it's completely fabricated by you.

So far, neither you nor anyone else has,
in spite of my clear description of the inference that I've made.

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
be much more than obfuscation and generalization, and appear to be both
off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases. And, of course, I
think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
think so.

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.

And, of course, you don't find such comments as the above "ambiguous",
even though there is not one specific reference in the entire paragraph.
So, I don't have a clue as to what you are referring to, just a general
notion that you are objecting to something or other and think you're right
about it.

Neil