Ronald Raygun wrote:

Well, that's bull**** of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely
to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an
implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an
opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances
be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe
for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you
say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other
speed. That's fallacious.

What about his contention that he has better maneuverability at a higher
speed than a lower one, such that he can stop more effectively at the higher
speed? Does that wash?


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.