You were asked to provide support for a statement you made, which you cannot, because it is at best (and I emphasize the at best here) an emotionally based personal view that is not shared by many on this forum. When this is exposed, you are resorting to attacking people who are exposing the lack of support and, in the process, still trying to gain points for your unsupported statement (no, no matter how a poster responds to you, your statement about the FAA throwing a fit will not become true, a million ad hominem attacks or a million statements of agreement will not change the validity of a statement).
I've enjoyed your post, and I'm going to focus on this paragraph. It illustrates one reason why I'm holding my cards close to my vest and playing them carefully. The bandwagon fallacy is alive and strong. It's a tough fallacy to crack open.
The moral of the story here is that sometimes it's best to let your opponent score for you. I didn't need to provide any
specific evidence for my position before you stated falsehoods and displayed a closed mind to the debated statement. Your statement that I cannot provide support for a statement is something you cannot possibly know as true. Only I know if it's true or not. You can suspect it if you wish, but you cannot know it. You've just shown us all that you're wrongly stating something as fact when it is only known to you as an unknown. The second error is your thoughts culminating with this: "no matter how a poster responds to you, your statement about the FAA throwing a fit will not become true". This dialogue tells me that you've closed your mind to any possibility that the original statement could be true (and don't forget, it wasn't my
statement. I've only agreed and defended it). It's a critical error in reasonable thought, and your opinion's credibility falls with it. My earlier post about my belief that another poster doesn't truly want me to show the evidence has apparently turned prophetic with our discussion. It makes me wonder if you would objectively receive any evidence I provided.
I think you're confusing a personal attack with an attack on your thought process and opinion. For example, in this post I attacked your thought process and opinion, and I stated the reasons why they are not trustworthy. What I didn't do was attack you personally apart from the content, which what some posters have done to others with the "tin foil hat" talk. It's disgusting.
This all pretty interesting from you considering your first post on this forum was a proposition that Airbus and Boeing form a joint venture around the A320 and for Boeing to cease producing the MAX. Yet the opinion that the FAA has thrown a sort of a fit over Boeing trying to do the right thing isn't even worthy of plausibility before a poster is personally attacked? Would you have liked it if someone did that to your first post?
If you change your mind and reopen your case file, the largest piece of evidence of the FAA "throwing a fit" was in December. Even just the article's headline captures the tone of the FAA's message. We can debate what the aviation equivalent of "throwing a fit" is, or even if maybe the idiom was somewhat tongue in cheek. But what's impossible to logically argue against is that the FAA's actions amount to an antonym of what TTailedTiger stated. The facts are the facts. That was not a happy and reserved FAA. You can disagree with the subjective opinion of what it amounted to. We can debate whether or not it was the "right thing" and whether or not that classifies as a "fit". But what you can't say is there's zero evidence for it. https://www.ibtimes.com/faa-chief-deliv ... ce-2884981
You were asked to provide evidence of your support for TTailedTiger’s claim the the FAA “threw a fit” every time Boeing issued public statements. You haven’t.
Oh, was there a time limit?
There really isn’t anything to add to NonTechAvLover’s post.
If you want to align with someone who stated a falsehood and indicated a lack of openness to other opinions, be my guest.