Re: [Paddlewise] Terminology and Communication

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:30:09 -0500
  "Michael Daly" <michaeldaly_at_rogers.com> wrote:
>From: "Jed" <jluby_at_teamnorthatlantic.com>
>
>I guess my point was not made clear at all.  My fault. 
> Bob's examples 
>differ from the specialist's when viewed with the 
>specialist's terminology.
>That is, while he sees flying as including both flying 
>and gliding, the 
>specialist differentiates the two.

Oh come on now.  If we restrict "flying" to what might 
otherwise be more specifically called "powered flight", 
then replacing the plummeting person with a 
high-performance sailplane in John's example destroys it 
as a reductio ad absurdum argument, which is how John was 
trying to use it.

Imagine the following absurdity instead:

    However, Dr. Savitsky pointed out that the rise in CG 
   
    during surfing could occur but you could not call it
    planing any more than you could say high-performance
    sailplane on a cross-country "flight" of a few hundred
    miles was flying because it was supporting its weight 
   
    by generating lift, since it is not internally 
powered.

Do you see the problem?

And we still have the other absurdity of why a sailboat 
can plane but a surfing kayak cannot. A sail is not an 
internal power source by any reasonable definition.  Why 
is wind power more like internal combustion engine power 
than it is like wave (surf) power?  
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************