P-51D

wrote in message
oups.com...
I once read "Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special
Olympics - even if you win you're still retarded." With that thought
in mind I'll take the moral high road here and end this pointless
debate. Happy Flying, sunshine...

Hmmm,
Well I rarely would agree with Peter on anything, but was this
last little tidbit really necessary? Though the statement in itself is
true,..as my little brother can attest to, here it was just meant as
hateful. And very offensive to some of us . My brother is a Special Olympic
Gold Medalist and I am right damn proud of him.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

No offense intended Patrick - Peter just ****ed me off with his
pompous, know-it-all attitude. I've read a bunch of his other posts,
and this is nothing new.

I can sure agree with you there, to me his posts say college student that
doesn't have the sense God gave a turnip,..but considers himself the know
all see all Carnac! I usually do not bother reading his posts, just
happened to be following the P-51 thread though! I wouldn't waste my time
trying to reason with him, be like sitting in the backyard arguing with a
rock Hard to remember sometimes that people born with afflictions can not
help it, I remember a time when getting a laugh from making fun of someone
like that got you "corrected" very quickly by a parent . Sorry to say that
is not the case anymore. Strange how parents and schools have to teach such
PC things to not offend people,...but nothing is ever said of kids going
around calling each other "retarded". It sure is a bad habit of the youth
around here anyway.
Those folks can not help it, but I hope that Peter can get help and
learn to play with others

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

wrote in message
oups.com...
No offense intended Patrick - Peter just ****ed me off with his
pompous, know-it-all attitude. I've read a bunch of his other posts,
and this is nothing new.

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

A single P-51 lost still represents well under 1% of the total fleet. What
percentage was lost during their intended use? A lot greater than that, I'd
guess.

Your point, such as it is, merely demonstrates that sometimes absolute
numbers are more relevant than percentages.

It's wonderful that it [the Mona Lisa] exists, but there would be absolutely
no suffering in the world should the original Mona Lisa painting be
destroyed. Some people would irrationally bemoan the loss of the painting
(forgetting that the painting WILL eventually be destroyed one way or the
other), but that doesn't make it useful.

Most parents would mourn the death of their young child. By your
logic, such mourning would be "irrational" because the child would
"eventually be destroyed one way or the other". If you claim that
such parental mourning is not irrational, then your arguments in this
thread fail. If we accept that such parental mourning is indeed
irrational but nevertheless reasonable, understandable, and
acceptable, then your arguments in this thread fail. If you claim
that your arguments in this thread apply only to inanimate objects,
then your arguments fail. If you don't agree that such parental
mourning is reasonable, understandable, and acceptable, then you are
disconnected from normal human feeling and your arguments in this
thread become irrelevant.

- Ken -

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
I can sure agree with you there, to me his posts say college student [...]

It's funny seeing you and "kingfish" try to one-up each other making
ignorant assumptions about who or what I am. You guys are cracking me up!
Hilarious! The funniest part, you're being so ignorant about it, you can't
even tell how ignorant you're being.

Ignorance is bliss...so they say. You guys must be the happiest folks in
the world.

"Ken" wrote in message
...
Most parents would mourn the death of their young child. By your
logic, such mourning would be "irrational"

It IS irrational. Mourning is an entirely emotional, non-rational (that is,
irrational) process.

It seems many people in this thread would benefit from consulting a
dictionary and reading up on the definition of "irrational". In particular,
to note that there are several definitions, not all of which imply insanity.
Those people seem to think that being "irrational" is somehow something to
be avoided. The fact is, as human beings, we act irrationally all the time.

Get over it.

The only ignorance ever witnessed is in any post you have ever created.The
ignorance of your own arrogance and just how much of a horse's ass you are.
"PLONK"

Bye !

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
I can sure agree with you there, to me his posts say college student [...]

It's funny seeing you and "kingfish" try to one-up each other making
ignorant assumptions about who or what I am. You guys are cracking me up!
Hilarious! The funniest part, you're being so ignorant about it, you
can't even tell how ignorant you're being.

Ignorance is bliss...so they say. You guys must be the happiest folks in
the world.

It IS irrational. Mourning is an entirely emotional, non-rational (that is,
irrational) process.

However, attepmting to prevent something which would cause one to mourn
is entirely rational.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:31:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

It IS irrational. Mourning is an entirely emotional, non-rational (that is,
irrational) process.

It seems many people in this thread would benefit from consulting a
dictionary and reading up on the definition of "irrational". In particular,
to note that there are several definitions, not all of which imply insanity.
Those people seem to think that being "irrational" is somehow something to
be avoided. The fact is, as human beings, we act irrationally all the time.

Get over it.

Pete, not sure that mourning equals irrationality. Mourning is an
emotion and emotions are normally pretty unrestrained and
uncontrollable. There's really nothing irrational about it, it's kind
of automatic.

We may act irrationally frequently, as human beings, but mourning is
not rational or irrational, it just is.

Corky Scott

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 at 12:00:02 in message
, Peter Duniho
wrote:
What's insane is thinking that it's for some reason important to preserve
these planes. As I already pointed out, if they were so important to
preserve, we shouldn't have been building them to be destroyed in the first
place.

Peter,

That last sentence above does not make sense to me. We did not build
them to be destroyed, we hoped they would not be, but correctly realised
that many would be destroyed. It is obviously not important to you to
preserve them but it is to many people. So what? Both points of view are
valid.

The Mustang was designed and built to fight and help win the war for us.
That does not stop it being a thing of beauty and something that people
wish to enjoy for whatever internal reason they may have. 'Irrational'
admiration for a thing of beauty satisfies some curious internal
mechanism of the human being..

Part of being human is to be irrational in the way you describe.
However it is important to recognise you are being irrational and then
get on and enjoy what you want to do.

Mind you, in the words Professor Joad, 'it all depends what you mean by
irrational'. Rational thought to me follows strict logic from initial
premises and assumptions through to a conclusion.

Perhaps the starting point should be to ask what are your objectives?
Why do people listen to opera? Why do they watch sport? Why do they read
novels? What are legitimate activities for human beings?

If you never do anything except what is strictly rational in your terms
then any activities that give people pleasure without any obvious
purpose are presumably insane? That defines the majority of humans as
being insane! Well perhaps they are and you are the only sane one.

Remember that man is not a rational animal but a rationalising animal.
That means he is adept at finding reasons for what he wants to do. That
applies equally to those who wish to preserve and to those who don't.

More importantly, it's irrational to be concerned about not being able to
replace the airplanes. They aren't useful objects anymore (except, perhaps,
for the entertainment value they provide at air races and other airshows).
It is a fundamental truth that every last P-51 will eventually be destroyed,
just as every other thing that humanity has ever created will eventually be
destroyed. Even if P-51s were important to our survival as a species (and
they clearly are not), it would be futile to expect any to not eventually be
destroyed.

I presume you feel exactly the same about works of art: that it is
irrational to wish to protect and preserve them? No doubt the world and
the human race will change, if either or both of them survive. In the
long run all may be destroyed but it sure helps to pass the time before
doomsday in an activity that you get pleasure from.

I find this irrationality even more amusing in the context of a newsgroup
where there were a handful of folks talking about how "irrational" people
with religious faith are. I suppose folks here don't mind being irrational
as long as it's their own preferential brand of irrationality. If it's
someone else's, that's apparently cause for derision.

That's life and the human condition. To me tolerance of other people
foibles is something good. But that is probably irrational as well.

--
David CL Francis