saying something is not allowed when it actually is allowed is incorrect.
It is not allowed. We have already agreed on that. Pay attention. The only contention here is whether we implied that it's
legally not allowed - which I already acknowledged the possibility of (even if I strongly disagree with the idea that
everyone would misread it in such a silly way), and said I'd fix it.
So, aside from reheating stale arguments that were already resolved, do you have anything remotely useful to say?
But hey what do I know I'm just one of those pesky roundheads!
Sadly, yes. You have a track record of jumping into discussions without having read them fully, introducing ridiculous technical objections which simply rely on you being emotional. You actively look for things to disagree with, and in the process you forget to sanity check what you're saying. Suddenly, there's an objection you've always had, but it just so happened that you didn't think to voice it until
after it was discussed and a compromise was reached. Get out.
Ok, lets put some actual facts into this.
Thank you, Thork, that's exactly the kind of expertise I was looking for. I should have thought to ask you in the first place.
Would the following be a reasonable summary?
- Hypothetical curvature only visually discernible from above 60,000ft (we could cite Lynch on that)
- Commercial aircraft are built to cruise at much lower altitudes, usually topping off at 45,000ft
- In practice, it would be very uncommon for ATC to assign anything higher than 41,000ft (I understand that even that is super uncommon, but you can see what kind of crowd we're dealing with here, and it doesn't weaken our claim anyway)
Any SERIOUS objections to the above will be considered. More bickering about whether or not your mum saying you're not allowed to play video games tonight is the same as being legally prohibited from playing video games will be treated as off-topic.