Why, Courtney?
Courtney, in #2968 you wrote:
“Certainly one can argue that absolute evidence is not possible without flight and cockpit recorders and that the findings broke with the tradition of not finding deceased crew guilty of negligence, but it was probably time for this quaint tradition to be binned”.
By such words you torpedo your own argument, and reveal a scheming, gusting sinister, element to your contributions.
You torpedo your argument by agreeing that the (absolute) standard of proof required in this case simply has not, and never can be, met.
By continuing:
“…the findings broke with the tradition of not finding deceased crew guilty of negligence, but it was probably time for this quaint tradition to be binned”,
you downgrade the collection of rules imposed by lawful authority at the time, on your whim. And which key decision makers in this miscarriage, not to mention subsequent reviewers, were members of that lawful authority? (Rhetorical).
The sinister element comes from your timing of arrival in the merge, your rate of escalation of argument per number of posts, and your emphasis on the specious elements of the case. This is clearly designed to influence relative newcomers to the dispute, as it sounds almost plausible, at the first pass, to the uninitiated. You are content to drop the burden of proof required in this case from ‘absolutely no doubt whatsoever’, to ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, or lower.
All of this, considering important review events in the next few weeks, makes me suspicious of you Clive (strike Clive), I meant Courtney, obviously.
EWP