Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Requires someone to say they are wrong because of the character attack.
false
Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
321–330 of 354 posts
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#322Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you assume out of hand they would be low quality? We see in other industries, such as the Chinese military industry, that they are capable of producing a lot of high quality air frames. Their stealth J-20 has never had an accident in the 13 years it's been flying and they are building 120 per year, and flying them tens of thousands of hours per year. You can look at other models. Their Xian Y-20 freighter has…
The military ones are Russian engineering assisted, iirc. The ones we should look at for airlines would be the Comac C919 ( and progressively C929 and C939). https://theaircurrent.com/china/china-eastern-comac-c919-ret... > Launch airline China Eastern’s tentative February 28 entry-into-service date never materialized [..] > After regularly operating as part of its route proving, the aircraft appeared to change tempo…
The J-20 and Y-20 have absolutely zero russian input.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#324Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
false
No. Ad hominem literaly means "to the man". Attacking the speaker instead of the substance of what they said is a textbook ad hominem. You just don't like what he said because it's true.
The other poster wasn't participating in an argument with Matt Walsh. You don't seem to understand the basics of logic.
>You just don't like what he said because it's true.
Cute following up with a fallacy of your own.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Ad hominem literaly means "to the man". Attacking the speaker instead of the substance of what they said is a textbook ad hominem. You just don't like what he said because it's true.
The other poster wasn't participating in an argument with Matt Walsh. You don't seem to understand the basics of logic. >You just don't like what he said because it's true. Cute following up with a fallacy of your own.
>The other poster wasn't participating in an argument with Matt Walsh.
not required.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Ad hominem literaly means "to the man". Attacking the speaker instead of the substance of what they said is a textbook ad hominem. You just don't like what he said because it's true.
The other poster wasn't participating in an argument with Matt Walsh. You don't seem to understand the basics of logic. >You just don't like what he said because it's true. Cute following up with a fallacy of your own.
>Cute following up with a fallacy of your own.
oh please. HN's bias is exactly the same as reddit's. -4 for posting facts, and fallacies. It couldn't be more obvious.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other poster wasn't participating in an argument with Matt Walsh. You don't seem to understand the basics of logic. >You just don't like what he said because it's true. Cute following up with a fallacy of your own.
>Cute following up with a fallacy of your own. oh please. HN's bias is exactly the same as reddit's. -4 for posting facts, and fallacies. It couldn't be more obvious.
[deleted]
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other poster wasn't participating in an argument with Matt Walsh. You don't seem to understand the basics of logic. >You just don't like what he said because it's true. Cute following up with a fallacy of your own.
>The other poster wasn't participating in an argument with Matt Walsh. not required.
No argument, no fallacy. Logic 101 son.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other poster wasn't participating in an argument with Matt Walsh. You don't seem to understand the basics of logic. >You just don't like what he said because it's true. Cute following up with a fallacy of your own.
>Cute following up with a fallacy of your own. oh please. HN's bias is exactly the same as reddit's. -4 for posting facts, and fallacies. It couldn't be more obvious.
No, I'm just annoyed when someone bleats on about any fallacy and doesn't understand it. Your willingness to attack me in the same way is amusing though.
'You just think X' is silly. You know nothing.