TonyC
Frederick's Happy Face
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 3,050
Actually, if you look no further than the title of the thread, you can see that Tadpoles is being less than objective from the start.ackattacker said:If you read tadpole's initial post, you will understand why she is upset with the responses on this topic. She was looking for specific, constructive input on methods of implementing change, not opinions on the fitness of pilot or plane.
Notice, the title is not "Does something need to be done about the MU-2?" On the contrary, the title assumes that something is wrong with the MU-2, that something needs to be done about the MU-2, and then leaves us to discuss what that something is.
When someone says, "Nothing needs to be done, the pilots need more training," the poster is labeled as ignorant. Apparently, then, objective discussion was not the goal of this thread.
Apparently Tadpoles is not ready, and understandably so, to hear this type of input, whether it be the truth or not.Tadpoles said:To anyone else, please keep your INTELLIGENT comments (not "it's a good plane, only bad pilots) coming...
In the same post,
That's right. This is not a debate. Tadpoles has already established that the airplane was to blame, as we can read in the title. Only those who agree with that premise should participate in the discussion.Tadpoles said:From my first post: Like I said, this is not to debate whether or not to blame the plane, ...
.