Originally posted by GideonHM
Armap, you just utilized the fallacy of the Strawman/Red Herring.
Did I? I do not even like herrings (or straw
If I did, I suppose it was on the PS, the rest of my post was, as far as I understood it, a correct answer to what you had posted about the
, and that is what we are supposed to talk about, that was why I left the comment about Chadwickus
's post for the PS.
His post in topic was two, and the third sentence was irrelevent to the point, not to mention that you ignored the POINT of the post and
quickly tried to knock down the matter at hand.
OK, how many of your answer to Chadwickus
was really on-topic and not a comparison of
posting styles or way of doing things?
This is a DISCUSSION forum, and you are not really discussing the meat of the topic and are concerned with 2 or three sentences (yes, I did
that on purpose, as the information is more important than the delivery).
Yes, this is a discussion forum, but let's look at the opening
said was "I thought I'd see if our wonderful community could tell me.", he (or she?) did not even presented a
discussion, he was, in my opinion, just asking for opinions about it.
You nit-picked over the fact I purposefully left off the third sentence, and ignored the majority of the relevent issues I posted. I know you
winked in fun, but gimme a break.
How could I discuss anything except the dark streak on the (possible) contrail?
How can we seriously know about "chemical spectral signature" for something we do not even know where it was filmed, how the atmosphere was at that
time at that place (and I do mean at that altitude), etc.
For the contrail, it looks like a contrail to me, but I know that you would rather close the book on it Armap. I disagree with your take on
many issues, but I never deny your intelligence, but I do deny your take on what is an acceptable post, and I am trying to avoid an ad-hominem attack
on you, as your perspective is at the heart of your statement.
If by "close the book" you mean that I think that this is not worth more
effort in trying to prove what it was, then you are right, I don't see anything more that could be understood about this when we do not have any more
data about it.
And while you can have your own opinions about anything, so can I, and I find that the post from Chadwickus
was "acceptable". It was not a
really good post (that is why I did not starred the post) and it was not an excellent post (that is why I did not applaud him), but it was acceptable,
in my opinion.
I personally know that you have shot down many opportunities for a relevent conversation, WHO CARES IF THEY ARE WRONG?
If that is your
opinion, I would like to be warned about it every time you see it, I have no intention of making of ATS a less active forum than it is.
Can you provide spectral analysis of the video footage? PLEASE? All I am asking is that people contribute more than the minimum post
As I said before, how can we? Only if we contribute our opinions (seeing that more data is hard, if not impossible, to find), and
that was what I did.
Also, rarely is it possible to retain the effectiveness of a sentence or paragraph when rendering it down to one word (or in the case of a
paragraph one sentence).
Short and sweet does not effective make.
No, but neither a long and with big words post means that it is effective, and by effective I mean
relevant to the what was being said.
But I think we should stop this discussion about what is and what is not acceptable in our subjective opinions and let the thread follow its natural