| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
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.