Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*)

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 02:20 AM 8/22/99 -0700, William Beaty wrote:
> I think the author is referring to John Denker's long-held assertion that
> airplanes fly because there is a force between the wings and the earth's
> surface.  That's what this whole debate is really about.  (Although I
> haven't heard what Mr. Denker's explanation of high-level flight has
> become currently, so perhaps he has changed his position.)

This looks like bad-faith argumentation to me.

Mr. Beaty *knows* that I do not assert and have never asserted a *direct*
force between the earth and the wings.

I have twice apologized for writing words that were even remotely open to
that misinterpretation.

I have also reiterated, and now re-reiterate, that persons of good faith
should be able to see past the word games and comprehend the point I was
trying to make.  Many have done so, pointing out the analogy to the
elementary physics puzzle regarding a closed container of birds.  What
happens if the birds, rather than perching, are steadily flying inside the
container?  Is the weight of the container decreased?

Indeed at 08:55 PM 8/20/99 -0700, Mr. Beaty acknowledge that this was *not*
"what the whole debate is really about" and apologized for bringing it up,
saing:
> I agree that the above is a minor error.  I see that I should not have
> mentioned it at all because it is a distraction from the main body of my
> message (see original below).  Please ignore it, it's done with, very
> sorry I said anything.

It's done with?  Apparently not, since he brings it up again, putting words
into my mouth that are even *more* open to misinterpretation than anything
I actually said.

Very sorry?  Apparently not sorry enough to avoid compounding the offense.

And then he slyly suggests that *I* have been changing my position.