A truly revealing response, Devils Advocate, … uhm … sir. Thank you for that. It matters little whether you would wish to be ‘any sort of legal chap’ for you have here demonstrated your complete lack of any of the requisite ability (and read into that what you will). When ‘legal types’ state they are ‘a little disturbed’, they generally mean precisely that, for it is vital in the practice of law to articulate one's meaning precisely. And ‘a little disturbed’ does not mean that one is outraged, and foaming at the mouth, as it appears are you.
I make no claim as to any detailed knowledge in the sphere of aviation, thus I would not seek to define a technical aeronautical term by reference to ‘The Concise Oxford Dictionary’, whatever edition. Hopefully, I would have the good sense to refer to a relevant authoritative text before prematurely launching into print and thereby publicly displaying my gross ineptitude. Or I might, perhaps, defer to those who have some professional expertise.
I am truly sorry you are ‘a little disturbed’ that I ignore your supposedly hypothetical, though largely inane, questions. I choose to answer only your last, as follows: it would of course depend upon the circumstances, but it is not my wont to take heed of gossipmongers. I feel I would instead be rather disapproving of the ‘advisor’ as well as suspicious as to his/her true character and the underlying motive in proffering the opinion. If I myself were the subject of an allegation that, in a professional sense, I was ‘a bit suspect’, I would seek redress in the tort of defamation. To put it in language of your choice, I would sue the defamer’s arse
(perhaps you would prefer it stronger, but that is as far as I will go). If this was said about me in the non-professional sense, I might be quite amused, even delighted, for it would surely be quite harmless, and that, I think, is the point.
As to the remainder of your post above, it is clear, as you say, that ‘humility’ is not ‘one of [your] strong points’, and, whether employing ‘plain English’ or ‘legalese’, you do not in any way disprove an argument merely by refuting it. Do please try just a little harder next time.
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]