Originally Posted by
V-Jet
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because you attack the question does not mean the questions are not valid.
Okay, so that's
not an example of the
post hoc fallacy. The
post hoc ergo propter hoc (literally 'after this, therefore because of this') fallacy is easiest described as just because this came after that does not mean that caused this.
In any event, it's entirely irrelevant to whatever point you were trying to make about the validity of questioning someone's background. A somewhat more relevant aphorism would be to 'Play the ball, not the man.'
Originally Posted by
V-Jet
For a retired person you have a very deep interest in tail numbers and cycles.
Yes, and? I have a very deep interest in a good many topics. That's the wonderful thing about retirement; you get to indulge those interests.
Originally Posted by
V-Jet
Please let me be wrong.
Good news, you are.
Originally Posted by
V-Jet
Tell me Qantas hasn’t come to this to ‘prove’ safety that was once beyond reproach. And when I say beyond reproach, I mean that in an era when aircraft travel WAS risky it was ‘BEYOND REPROACH’.
You fellows have a seriously inflated view of yourselves if you think Qantas needs to run some sort of dark ops, counter-campaign on pprune.org.