Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
No, your premise is wrong. I have in fact already given you two
examples (and I have even pointed this out to you once already).

Really? I must have missed those posts. I don't recall you telling me the
name of anyone using the risk analysis you propose. But again, I am more
than happy to be corrected. Please feel free to point the posts out to
me...I will happily concede your point. Most convenient for me would be a
link to the Google Groups record of the post, but a Message-ID would be
fine.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
No, your premise is wrong. I have in fact already given you two
examples (and I have even pointed this out to you once already).

Really? I must have missed those posts.

You couldn't have missed them all because you responded to some of them.
But Google is your friend if you want to go back and review.

I don't recall you telling me the
name of anyone using the risk analysis you propose.

Another straw man. I didn't tell you their names.

But again, I am more than happy to be corrected.

Once again (because we've trod this ground before too) I doubt that very
much. I have already corrected you on half a dozen points (including
this one) and you don't seem particularly happy about it.

Please feel free to point the posts out to
me...I will happily concede your point.

I don't really care if you concede the point or not, so I'm afraid you
will have to do your own homework.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Another straw man. I didn't tell you their names.

Then you didn't provide the information I requested, and which would support
your claims.

But again, I am more than happy to be corrected.

Once again (because we've trod this ground before too) I doubt that very
much.

Do not pretend to know what I will or will not do. You clearly have no
idea.

I have already corrected you on half a dozen points (including
this one) and you don't seem particularly happy about it.

You have not made a single supportable correction. If you had, there are a
dozen folks in this newsgroup who would be overjoyed to hop on the bandwagon
of proving me wrong. That's just how Usenet is. The utter lack of support
for your claims is evidence enough of their fallacy.

Pete