Care to explain?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wow that was quick!
Wow quick again. Try to also mod those who refuse to read pages of a book sent for them to read. Try explicitly as well as you have yet to do so (apparently only with me).Care to explain?
Wow quick again. Try to also mod those who refuse to read pages of a book sent for them to read. Try explicitly as well.
If you have something to say about the factual content posted above I am all ears, otherwise if its only modding notice when someone repeatedly refuses to read content posted then misrepresents it by failing to read it, then smearing the book. Be genuine.
This thread was opened to discuss claiming, I have posted factual data. opposition has misrepresented it repeatedly and smeared it, owing to not reading what is clearly on the page.
Please point out where I said you Moderator should agree with my data in my above text? I am curious to know.Wrong! As a moderator it is not my job to make people agree, understand, or comprehend something. Everyone can have their own opinion or evaluate the facts as they wish.
As a moderator my job is to ensure whatever discussions take place are done in a civil manner.
Not hard to comprehend. Now are you going to insult me as well?
Yup. Be civil.No, it isn't. I asked you both to debate in a civil manner. That means no personal attacks. You talk about other's inability to read and comprehend, yet you apparently are not capable of doing that either. Hmmm…
I will not ask again. And this goes for all sides in the debate/argument. Do all parties understand?
Please point out where I said you Moderator should agree with my data in my above text? I am curious to know.
Please don't read into something that is not there.
Yes, done in a civil manner. Now what part about misrepresenting a book, smearing it after not even bothering to read it, and writing false things about it despite it being posted for everyone to see is civil ?
Yup. Be civil.
All Civil Engineers know the three basic rules:
1) Shit don't run uphill unless it is pumped.
2) Payday is Friday.
3) Don't mess with the boss's daughter.
Got it!
Still you in this context. It was about modding, not about my data I posted. Hence my post 104.Who is misrepresenting words now?
So smearing, misrepresenting what is on a page, refusing to read what is actually on the page then writing falsehoods about the book is civil to you? That is his opinion for sure, his right, but when the page have been posted yet not read and misrepresented an opinion becomes a smear and a falsehood.as long as it is civil
That yes, but when it is blatantly misrepresent as a result of not reading it (or only reading1 sentence) that is the exact opposite of scrutiny. It is misrepresentation and opinions based on that are smearing.As an author/researcher I would assume you are aware that all research and data is scrutinized, reviewed, and debated.
Mod I agree with your post 108, hence my detailed post 97 with factual data so others can mull it over. Will do, yet will not roll over when my work is unjustly smeared, not countered by other facts but by falsehoods stemming from a refusal to read a full paragraph at times.
Still you in this context. It was about modding, not about my data I posted. Hence my post 104.
Why I ask to mod those as explicitly as I have been? Because of instances already pointed out in post 63.
So smearing, misrepresenting what is on a page, refusing to read what is actually on the page then writing falsehoods about the book is civil to you? That is his opinion for sure, his right, but when the page have been posted yet not read and misrepresented an opinion becomes a smear and a falsehood.
That yes, but when it is blatantly misrepresent as a result of not reading it (or only reading1 sentence) that is the exact opposite of scrutiny. It is misrepresentation and opinions based on that are smearing.
Could you please specify, which exactly?
How many % of claims should be attributed to reach the crystal clarity?
The truth is not in the middle, it is strongly shifted towards one end.
The probability of undercounting Soviet losses can be estimated as very low.
A much greater challenge, as it seems to me, is the presence of more than one claim per loss. All circumstances have to be taken into account - time, place, altitude, type of aircraft, and each parameter is recorded with a certain inaccuracy (even the type of aircraft - in Romania Hartmann regularly claimed victories over LaGGs!), as a result it is more difficult to attribute a victory to a single individual than to establish whether or not there was one.
If I am wrong, any comments from specialists would be appreciated.
The facts may remain forever unknown.
That's why I write that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
That sums it all up nicely. Thanks for the succinct and accurate conclusion.
Hi Thunp,I think everyone understands the potential unreliability of eye-witness accounts, especially in an aerial combat involving high-speeds. Claims aren't always supported by opposing loss reports for many reasons. Believing that crystal clarity is obtainable in such circumstances doesn't strike me as realistic.
As I wrote earlier, I firmly believe the truth is somewhere in the middle and probably unknowable in the end. It should be noted that you were not yourself there, either. If you accept all claims at face-value, well, that's you. You're clearly not amenable to factors which may argue against that.
Hi Thunp,
I am amenable to factors in a discussion. Somehow, we can't seem to have a discussion. It comes to agree with me or you are simply wrong.
Well I think it's the same as when GregP said "Get real"Is that necessary?
Soviet documents are incredibly thorough and everything is documented. Whether an aircraft crash lands, gets damaged and repaired or explodes and is destroyed, it will be documented. So the chance of a shoot down not having a recorded loss is almost zero. So when it comes to Soviets there will always be a recorded loss.I can't even get the other side to admit there is some merit to the fact that there can be a shoot-down without a recorded loss ... even when a combat-trained military pilot says there CAN be. No discussion equals a sort of standoff.
I agree. I'm just saying that if what GregP said was ok, then what Luft.4 said is also ok. Both comments are in the same category for me.None of the BS is necessary. Discussing in good faith, however, is. That's the lifeblood of a healthy forum.