My first post to this subject challenged the previous poster to
substantiate
his assertion which contradicted my empirical experiences. The subsequent
responses to my first post have been littered with opinion and emotion, and
have lacked objectivity.

I see now. Your assertions are from empirical evidence, but others' are
"opinion and emotion".

'My' empirical evidence trumps 'yours' every time, so naturally it would
be pointless to continue this merry-go-round. Unless you have something
to offer which truly is objective.


Jack


Reread my post. You'll see that I said experiences, not evidence. The
distinction is not subtle.

Kevin, and the poster with whom I differed, don't have military flying
experience. They were each offering an observer's opinion, which I respect,
even though I disagree with them. Kevin's posting did indeed contain an
emotional argument, but not because I said so.

You too, are proceeding from an emotional position. Your postings clearly
indicate that, at the least you are antagonistic, at most you are looking for a
fight. I encourage you to be a positive contributor to this newsgroup, instead
of the instigator that you have revealed yourself to be.

If you disagree with my original posting, feel free to make your best case, and
point out the flaws in my reasoning. Feel free to share your personal military
flying experiences as well. As I previously said to you, your posting lacks
civility. You would do well to adopt a more conciliatory tone in your
postings.



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.