Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The other poster wasn't participating in an argument with Matt Walsh. not required.
No argument, no fallacy. Logic 101 son.
Again, not required.
Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
331–340 of 354 posts
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also IIRC there was a case before the Supreme Court where the dispute was whether shareholder value was the sole & supreme goal, or there could be other factors involved from other stakeholders (such as workers, the community, ...). The Supremes ruled for shareholder value. However I forget details of ths case. If anyone here happens to know what case I am referring to, please chime in.
You are probably thinking of the case described in GP, which is the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court on this issue.
I should have added, this was a case back in the 1980s.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
No argument, no fallacy. Logic 101 son.
Again, not required.
>Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" is not on its own an example of the abusive argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling
Don't bother responding with another "no."
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
[dead]
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, not required.
>Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" is not on its own an example of the abusive argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling Don't bother responding with another "no."
>Don't bother responding with another "no."
Go fuck yourself.
That better?
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" is not on its own an example of the abusive argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling Don't bother responding with another "no."
>Don't bother responding with another "no." Go fuck yourself. That better?
At least you've dispensed with any possibility that you're discussing this in good faith. Your flagged comment was nonsensical, please spend some time reacquainting yourself with basic logic and the nuances of fallacies before embarrassing yourself again in the future.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't bother responding with another "no." Go fuck yourself. That better?
At least you've dispensed with any possibility that you're discussing this in good faith. Your flagged comment was nonsensical, please spend some time reacquainting yourself with basic logic and the nuances of fallacies before embarrassing yourself again in the future.
Use a cactus.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least you've dispensed with any possibility that you're discussing this in good faith. Your flagged comment was nonsensical, please spend some time reacquainting yourself with basic logic and the nuances of fallacies before embarrassing yourself again in the future.
Use a cactus.
I'm uninterested in your deviant proclivities.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is basically what I wrote.
No. You wrote something that read as if AA is looking to replace all Airbus equipment. That was replied to with clarification that AA is looking to replace some of the older Airbus equipment but clearly not all of it. Now, your retort reads as a smarty pants chiding at someone else implying you didn’t actually know everything and smarting from it.
My retort was quoting you. Besides, I wrote "mostly" focuses... That doesn't mean "only" focuses. "As if" is only in your mind by a mistaken interpretation. Please reread my original post, this time slowly. Good grief.
Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was no way to raise the fuselage. That would require longer landing gear with no space in the wings to retract it, so it required new wings, leading to re-certifications of both the planes and the pilots and the associated costs. This grand-fathering of 737 is the reason it still does not have fly-by-wire in 2024: it simulates the antique original 737.
In retrospect maybe they should have based the MAX on the 757. It's more or less a stretched 737 with longer landing gear. Sounds perfect for installing those enormous engines.
There’s a thousand reasons why this not true and not a good idea.