Originally Posted by
Chugalug2
not quite how you misquoted it Thor.
It wasn't a misquote, it was a selective quote, no words were added or taken away. I shouldn't have added the full stop at the end, that was a mistake on my part.
I was trying to suggest that if the gross negligence verdict is overturned, a lot of the people who have been exploring the other angles, from the ridiculous to the critically important will stop working on those angles. In hindsight I should have just said that rather than trying to be clever with my quoting.
You are preplexed by my suggestion that I would be happy with the verdict being overturned.
Originally Posted by
Chugalug2
given that our "quest" is based on the notion that airworthiness provision and enforcement in the UK Military Airfleet by the MOD is utterly compromised.
That is your (and many others) quest , but not mine, or some others, I think. There is clearly enough doubt to quash the original verdict, and that's been my interest in this from the start.
Originally Posted by
Chugalug2
JP disputes that, caz ignores it, but you seem to be indifferent to it. Can that be so?
No, I am not indifferent to it, but I feel that I am not well enough informed or qualified to participate in that conversation. If there is a problem, it needs sorting, but is this the right place to do it?
TN