Originally Posted by
meleagertoo
No, of course I don't.
Who ramped this up to "LEGAL", this isn't a court of law. Or are you changing the rules midstream?
No kangaroo court - back to hysterical overstatement again! The evidence for pilot's actions? The preliminary reports and the data traces are all we have to go on but they're enough to tell a great deal. Or do you hold them discredited due to some hitherto unsuggested collusion or corruption?
I'm surprised you even need to ask that question...
I wasn't changing the rules just seeking to separate which things I should give more weight. I added "LEGAL" to mean officially sanctioned findings that have considered all available evidence rather than subjective personal, opinions which, however qualified the authors may be as pilots or whatever are merely that - subjective. The preliminary reports and data are just that, preliminary. My (your view) "hysterical overstatement " comment about a kangaroo court was simply trying to draw the distinction between judgments made with full evidence and those which are personal opinions.
My original question to you was trying to point out the contradiction between your "
Despite the amount of unequivocal evidence of misdeeds by the pilots" and your wish for evidence to be present evidence and discuss it rationally. My reading of the posts on this thread by qualified pilot does lead me to conclude that everyone is of that opinion and I merely suggesting that before making such a statement you should provide evidence of such.
Finally, as for your "hysterical overstatement" remark, you might like to go back and re-read your post where phrase such statements abound "hysteria ramps up and wild totally unsubstantiated accusations of bodgery etc etc", "shrill and baseless …. nothing short of scurrilous etc etc". You might also like to check out other posts on this thread (eg FAA getting comments on their whistleblower phoneline) which suggest that these unsubstantiated accusations are less than unsubstantiated.
Sorry that I had to take up your time explaining this again.