Originally Posted by
Karnak
The evidence, such as your voting record when compared to the actual results of ratification ballots, indicates your views and opinions aren't shared by a clear majority of the pilots. I'm sure your perspective overlaps with the majority on some issues, but certainly not on most of them.
Your purposeful error is the assumption that a ratification vote equals support for the TA or lack thereof. It doesn't. There are some here that have stated they're an automatic NO vote because they know DALPA is out to hurt its members. Such a NO vote does not show lack for support of the TA, it shows a lack of support for the union. Conversely, I talked personally to many YES voters that did so because of the fear campaign waged by the MEC administration. They said they hated the TA, but feared what could happen if the MEC administration was right about the company's Plan B. That YES vote clearly does not show support for the TA, but rather a choice between the lesser of two evils.
I know you understand this, but you purposely use this fallacy to defend the indefensible.
Originally Posted by
Karnak
That's not a slam on you personally. It's a disclaimer that should be added to any of your posts that include such statements as, "The pilots want…", and "ALPA is out of touch with the line pilots."
See above
Originally Posted by
Karnak
Claiming that ALPA insiders perform Jedi Mind Tricks to sway pilots is an insult to the pilot group by suggesting they don't read and digest the Con arguments published by their reps (such as your's and mine during C2012 ratification). What's more likely is that your thoughtfully-reached conclusions aren't shared by most of your fellow pilots, and because you feel you reached them via impeccable logic, the only possible alternative is that ALPA is hypnotizing most of the pilots to vote yes.
Right out of the O'Malley playbook from back then. These two phrases were used routinely by Harwood, White, Hazzard, Pinot and the rest of you ousted Moak disciples to disqualify the speech of those who smoked out that administration's true motives. It's old school and boring, but i know you'll continue to give us the best of echo chamber "debate."
Originally Posted by
Karnak
I don't think you can have it both ways: "ALPA guys are masters of persuasion" versus "ALPA guys are poor debaters."
This is a wasted few sentences because your job at DALPA was to communicate through deceptive non-communication, but here goes anyway. You guys are exceedingly poor debaters. That's what happens when you only spend time in your echo chamber. You are also exceedingly poor at persuasion. That's why you've no choice but to ignore the explicit direction of our reps, then engage in the worst kind of fear tactics as a campaign strategy.
So you see Karnak, I'm not asking to have things "both ways." It's two separate weaknesses within DALPA. You guys are both poor debaters and poor at persuasion.
Carl