A Google Groups alternative to rec.aviation.piloting?

buttman writes:

Huh? Claims never need to be backed up? Backing up your claims is
analogous to showing your work on a math problem.

Showing your work is not the same as pointing to a book.

Most people in these situations want the person with whom they disagree to
point to a book or other outside reference. They fully do not expect to get
the reference, which allows them to to claim that the opinion with which they
disagree is baseless. If they get a reference, they claim that the reference
doesn't meet some arbitrary standard of reliability. Overall, it's just a
diversion.

It's also possible to support an argument by simply exposing the reasoning
behind it, proceeding forward from universally accepted premises ("showing
your work"), but in these situations people will not accept this, because they
know that it is hard to refute. They want an outside reference that they hope
they won't get, and they plan to reject the reference if by some chance they
do actually get it. It's much harder to argue with logic, so that is rejected
from the beginning.

It shows the processes you used to come to your conclusion.

Rest assured, most people will not accept the processes, as they don't want to
have their opinion challenged at all. They are not giving you an opportunity
to persuade them, they are simply rejecting summarily and feigning a desire to
let you persuade them. The request for a reference is classic for this
purpose because it's always possible to reject a reference for one reason or
another. That isn't possible if you start with accepted axioms and reason
forward from them.

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.

A reqeust for references is also based on character, except it shifts the
target from the person making a particular assertion to the person who was the
source of the reference. Since it is still subjective, it can still be
rejected, which is why so many people use this as a diversion.