"Neil Gould" wrote in message
news
[...]
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*.

Actually, just as your reply truncated the thread to the point at which you
felt a need to interject, so did mine. My reply was not intended to address
the earlier post you quote, nor did it.

It *did* however address statements such as "if the aircraft is flying, it
is not landing" (yours, and incorrect) and "If the aircraft is flying and
descending, it is landing" (Mxsmanic's, and basically correct, even if he
does misunderstand other aspects of landing).

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

No one claimed that it does, as yet.

True. It's hard to know WHAT you and Dave Doe are claiming, since you
refuse to pin down your ambiguous statements.

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?

Go back and read the post that you quoted. You'll find the answer there.

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

For one, whatever assumption it is that makes you think that "Wrong" is a
correct and valid reply to "If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is
landing".

[...]
I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
you are making that is completely unsubstantiated.

Your own actions justify the presumption. If you weren't predisposed to
attacking him, you would have given him the benefit of the doubt when
interpreting his ambiguous statement.

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.

Fabricated? It's an inference. How can an inference NOT be "fabricated"?
It is, by definition, an assumption made by the inferrer to compensate for
insufficient clarity of an original statement.

So again...if you feel my inference is incorrect, feel free to provide a
correction. That would involve clarifying your previous, ambiguous
statement.

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
be much more than obfuscation and generalization,

If you're having so much trouble understanding my posts, I'm amazed you even
know the word "obfuscation".

and appear to be both
off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases.

For example?

And, of course, I
think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
think so.

In which posts? I've yet to see any that were clear on either point. Feel
free to post a message ID, or Google Groups link, or even just quote the
text you feel substantiates the above claim.

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.

You should look up the word "ambiguous". It doesn't mean "without
references".

Pete