10-12-2006, 09:28 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Why? Isn't the very definition of an opinion something you believe more than the alternative? Is it possible to have a low opinion of your own opinions? That isn't mutually exclusive of being open minded (which means you are willing to listen and consider alternatives when presented which in no way means you don't like your own opinions).
|
10-12-2006, 09:29 PM | #62 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
Quote:
I will first admit that I orignially presumed that you thought most of our urban areas were as important to protect as NYC. This, I will admit, springs from my personal bias as I live and work in neither NYC or DC, nor have I visited either city countless times. So I agree that given your clarification, and putting aside whether it is a reasonable position, I iwll limit the discussion to NYC and DC. I am sure that taking out LA's tallest building, or the Golden Gate Bridge, or one of CHicago's tallest buildings is of little consequence as long as we can hang on to NYC and DC. (This reminds me of those novelty maps that show the subject city in great detail and everything else as being little and uninteresting, but I digress.) You are the one that pointed out that the Lidle plane issued a distress signal. You tell me what import that has. I simply point out that if anythign it makes it even less likely that the flight would be a terrorist flight and so, if one is in the chain of command deciding whether to risk shooting the plane down (along with the attendnat colateral damage) how would this information that you presented help? The real point is that ANY plane flying with in many miles of manhattan constitutes a threat. So what? What is NORAD or anyone else supposed to DO about it? You do like the last word, so go ahead and take it. I am sure no one else is eve reading at this point. BTW, I think Rocky meant that he thought you had an unduly inflated or exaggerated sense of the relative worth of your opinions. Somehow I suspect you knew that.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
||
10-12-2006, 09:31 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
This thread is very entertaining. Some people just have a remarkably difficult time admitting they might be wrong.
My father has been an educator most of his adult life and has said from time to time that he never worries about kids having too much hubris because life invariably takes us all down a peg or two. Maybe he is wrong.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
10-12-2006, 10:11 PM | #64 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
First of all, if you are limiting it to the most simple portion of my argument, you missed the actual argument entirely (not surprising, given the other avenues your arguments have taken here). The most simple issue involved not what NORAD would do once notified but rather why they apparently weren't notified at all. The others who should have been monitoring air traffic in the region include the FAA and/or air traffic control along with military outposts. This is not the equivalent of "one central database" but rather is many databases with overlapping jurisdictions. I am surprised NORAD was not notified by anyone. How long would it take to move information from an agency to NORAD? Well, electronic communcation is immediate, so I imagine not long (perhaps, immediately?). Once notified, YOU then contemplate what should have happened. I don't know what should have happened once notified, which, by the way, is tangential to my concern that NORAD wasn't actually aware of the plane flying at such a low altitude over such an important target. Being aware is the first step to a response. If we don't have that step, it doesn't really matter what step 2 is. Do they have AA guns on buildings? Fighters nearby? Other intercept devices? I don't know. I imagine they have a decent plan given recent events. That plan can't be enacted without knowledge of a threat. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
10-12-2006, 10:13 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
|
10-12-2006, 10:16 PM | #66 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Not to be a ninny, but do we know that NORAD received no information, or do we know that the chief of NORAD stated he first learned of the accident through commerical means?
What evidence do we have that NORAD did not receive an electronic report? Hoya, do you believe Air Traffic Controllers able to trace all planes even in a confined air space?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
Bookmarks |
|
|