On Aug 15, 10:37*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
buttman writes:
I'm criticizing people not backing up their claims with fact.

Yes, you're criticizing people. *That's not a discussion of aviation.

Well this thread really isn't about aviation. This is one of those
meta-threads that pop every once in a while. It is about the group and
the people who are ruining it.

Think of this thread as a sort of "appeals court" for the discussions
that go one here. A place to criticize and analyze the things that go
on behind the discussions.


Statements made by anyone can be evaluated on their own merits, without any
reference to personalities or the people making the statements. *Facts are
facts; falsehoods are falsehoods. *It doesn't matter where they come from.
Statements can be verified by comparison with other sources of known accuracy.
There is never any need to worry about who made the statements.

No disagreement here.

In that post I'm challenging him to back up his claims with fact.

Either he is right, or he is wrong. *The old saw about backing claims up with
facts is just a diversion tactic, and a poor one at that. *If he is wrong,
correct him. *If he is right, let it stand.

Huh? Claims never need to be backed up? Backing up your claims is
analogous to showing your work on a math problem. It shows the
processes you used to come to your conclusion. Dudley made a claim
that I whole heartedly disagree with, so I asked him to "show his
work" to get a better understanding of why he feels that way.


And his reasons for me being the worlds worst instructor I think is very
aviation related.

No, they are personality related. *Exactly the type of thing that you were
criticizing just a few posts ago.

What I was criticizing "a few posts ago", was arguments hinged solely
on character. This tangent that has popped up may be related to
people's character, but you sure won't find me hinging any arguments
solely on someone's character, if thats what you're implying.