Here's a headline I noticed in my paper this morning. No, I'm not one of the 28 passengers (I wonder how they found each other; my guess is they were part of one company using NW or DL exclusively).
Obviously very easily. The "implicit assumptions" claimed constitutes "making stuff up", for the "implicit assumptions" claimed are neither present nor necessary conditions for that position to stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoose[/quote
Your referenced analogy does include assumptions that you are making, even though you don't outline those assumptions or state why you're making them or what basis they have for being correct. In a traditional scientific proof, these assumptions are usually preceded by a "Given that..."
Irrelevant in this situation, again, for the "implicit assumptions" claimed are not present and certainly are not necessary conditions for my statement to stand; therefore the FTer's claims about the "implicit assumptions" constitutes "making stuff up" as mentioned earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoose
You didn't make that disclosure and thus the reader was left to parse that for themselves. And since you didn't make any justifications for your assumptions, the reader is left to accept your assumptions, refute your assumptions, or abstain from passing judgment on your entire analysis without your whole case being made on your terms.
Either you forgot to outline and detail these assumptions or you chose not to go into them, in either case the burden is on you to support them.
Nothing in this merger is a given, no matter how much you try and obfuscate your points in a maze of rhetoric.
Speaking of making stuff up, listed under that is to be your claim about what I am supposedly trying to do.
Ironic claim about obfuscation in a maze of rhetorice, given that the maze of rhetoric is actually yours above. Once again, the above quoted whining about a"maze of rhetoric" reminds me of the meaning of that line from Hamlet (with gender adjustment as applicable): ""Methinks the lady doth protest too much".
Some things with this "merger" are a given, whether properly recognized or improperly denied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJMeatBall
Here's a headline I noticed in my paper this morning. No, I'm not one of the 28 passengers (I wonder how they found each other; my guess is they were part of one company using NW or DL exclusively).
I don't think this kind of approach is going to accomplish much of anything other than to give some lawyers on each side a few more potential billable hours of work than they would otherwise have.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
I don't think this kind of approach is going to accomplish much of anything other than to give some lawyers on each side a few more potential billable hours of work than they would otherwise have.
I can only think of one way a lawsuit could have any impact. Delay the DOJ approval long enough so it's under the control of the next administration. While I don't think a democratic administration would stop the merger, they likely would require additional stipulations on the labor and consumer front.
Some things with this "merger" are a given, whether properly recognized or improperly denied.
"Enumerate" them, please.
Do you reject the idea that you made assumptions in your analogy? If you don't, then please justify them. If you do, then I guess we can't have a discussion since your argument relies on the assumptions you made.
Here's a headline I noticed in my paper this morning. No, I'm not one of the 28 passengers (I wonder how they found each other; my guess is they were part of one company using NW or DL exclusively).
Programs: DL Plat (frmr NW), IHG PC Plat, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Slvr, Choice Priv Gold, National Emrld Exec
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolinian
GO GET 'EM!
While I agree with the sentiment at this point it seems to be far too little too late. For all practical purposes the "market" has assumed that this so-called merger is essentially a done deal. Personally I have a number of doubts that that any resulting economies of scale can begin to compensate for the fuel situation and even greater doubts that they can achieve much if they actually keep all the promises made. (e.g. no hub reductions) Its already triggered CO's deal with UA further compounding the assumption. If the "merger" is stopped it will pull down confidence in NW as going concern even further than the current "mud pit" level and quite possibly finish NW off for good.
Anyone who thinks they can block the merger and keep the current competitive landscape making a potentially risky bet.
I wonder if this might be more than just some upset passengers and some quick-buck attorneys. Could it be a ploy by the NW pilots union for example?
That would mean some deep pockets and a lawsuit that could be protracted trench warfare.
Programs: NW Plat 00-Sep09, DL PlatM Oct09-11, DL Lifetime Silver, UA Premier 09-11
Posts: 2,010
Higher threshold?
There is a conversation going on with DLRealInsider regarding the likelihood of higher threshold for status. As 75,000 miles is already a stretch for me, I'm worry about the higher requirements.....maybe it's only for super platinum or another status above Platinum but who knows.....
Programs: AS MVP Gold, NW/DL Plat (See My DL Pictures on Facebook)
Posts: 1,251
Xmas Time
Quote:
Originally Posted by nroscoe
apparently someone DID look a gift horse in the mouth.
What "gifts" are you referring to? Lost jobs at the Crown room in SEA? Downgraded positions for some of the longstanding TA's and GA's at SEA? Lost jobs in Chisholm and MSP? What am I missing here?
-A
Last edited by Poopdeck90210; Jun 24, 08 at 2:25 am.
Enough's Enough!
Coincidence???
