Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1080547)

Tennessee lost to both Bama and LSU by 31 points. I predict a tie.

Originally Posted by Superdad (Post 1080944)

Unless ALPA wants to revisit the seniority list, waste negotiating capital on getting rid of the hat, and some how get us leather jackets to wear, these folks aren't interested in anything ALPA has to say.

Originally Posted by Superdad (Post 1080876)

Name them. Perhaps I am misinformed.

Originally Posted by Superdad (Post 1080876)

If you volunteered and were unsuccessful at changing the system then you were in the minority.

Originally Posted by Superdad (Post 1080876)

ALPA's job is to represent the wishes of the majority of the pilot group. It cannot work any other way.

Originally Posted by Superdad (Post 1080876)

If you didn't get what you wanted then you were not in the majority. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1081138)

Interesting that the spoilers started to come up, then retracted after the bounce, then came up...again...after the second landing! Did he retract them? Or is it like a MD-88, where they...sometimes...come up, then stow, then come up again?

Originally Posted by Superdad (Post 1080876)

You continuously rant on this forum, hurling insult after insult at ALPA and those who choose to give of their free time to help fellow pilots. Just stooping to your level.

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer (Post 1080888)

Here is your earlier argument: "The DPA has not acted to change policy. They have instead decided to attack the institution ... which suggests to me the DPA is mostly OK with ALPA's policies and practice." Your current argument is not much better and still a logical fallacy. I have a feeling you already know that though. See below:

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.

Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.

Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.

Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).

Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.

Example
Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
Problem: Those who have been met are a representative subset of the entire set.

Affirming the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.

Example:
Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.
Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.

Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water).

Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.

Example
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds.

Originally Posted by 1234 (Post 1080891)

For the DPA supporters, what must the next contract be in order for you to say that ALPA was successful in our contract negotiations?

Originally Posted by Superdad (Post 1080944)

Unfortunately the answer is all to easy to predict. ALPA could never be successful in the eyes of some of these folks because they hate ALPA. No matter what, most of the DPA supporters will still want ALPA off the property at first sight of any TA.

Originally Posted by Superdad (Post 1080944)

Unless ALPA wants to revisit the seniority list, waste negotiating capital on getting rid of the hat, and some how get us leather jackets to wear, these folks aren't interested in anything ALPA has to say.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1080977)

People who say that don't know the SWA contract.

Originally Posted by Superdad (Post 1080944)

Unless ALPA wants to revisit the seniority list, waste negotiating capital on getting rid of the hat, and some how get us leather jackets to wear, these folks aren't interested in anything ALPA has to say.