A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

^ This.

^ This all you want…

Moderators will still not "moderate" or "censor" someone's "opinion." It's not our job.

Nor is someone's opinion automatically trashing or disrespecting someones work.

So debate each other until your ears fall off, but do it without the pointed jabs and insults at the other side as I have politely asked on numerous occasions, and now a 2nd moderator has asked as well. This goes for GregP and CHen10 , and anyone else in the conversation as well.

 

[CHen10]

So debate each other until your ears fall off, but do it without the pointed jabs and insults at the other side as I have politely asked on numerous occasions, and now a 2nd moderator has asked as well. This goes for GregP and CHen10 , and anyone else in the conversation as well.

I agree. Sounds good to me!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree. Sounds good to me!

Thank you

 

[Luft.4]

I see nothing wrong or incorrect with highlighting something I agree with a "^" symbol. That is not a jab, that is me agreeing. No different than your "sigh..." you have used 3x now. Or perhaps as a mod was that a jab at a user?

I am not asking for "censorship", do not misinterpret it that way. Or if you feel it was, please highlight the post and the context and I will change my tune.


Back to claiming, anyone have further evidence of how the claiming system worked? Mod, do you have any data to add?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I see nothing wrong or incorrect with highlighting something I agree with a "^" symbol. That is not a jab, that is me agreeing. No different than your "sigh..." you have used 3x now. Or perhaps as a mod was that a jab at a user?

I am not asking for "censorship", do not misinterpret it that way. Or if you feel it was, please highlight the post and the context and I will change my tune.


Back to claiming, anyone have further evidence of how the claiming system worked? Mod, do you have any data to add?

It was no jab at all. It was a sigh…

As for censorship, you have called the moderation several times of people not reading or disagreeing with your work, even if it is their opinion. See post 102: "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)." And "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."

You also claim that I am only doing it to you, which is also 100% FACTUALLY FALSE. Three times I posted a general post to all involved asking everyone to not let it get out of control. Snide comments were being made all. After being ignored three times I began to call individuals out.

It is not the Mod's job to lead a horse disagreeing with you to water…

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Now, all of this arguing is detracting from the actual discussion. If everyone would just agree to discuss their facts or opinions without the jabs and snide comments this could be a decent discussion where people learn something one way or another.

 

[Luft.4]

As for censorship, you have called the moderation

You do realize those are 2 different words right? That is why I worded my post(s) the way I did. If they meant the same thing you would be in charge of censoring people, I do not think that is what you do.
Have I called for censorship? No. It would be nice if you noticed which words I am using.

Total agreement with your latest message, one I have been trying to get going over the last dozen posts. If you have any data to share, please do. Same for anyone else.

 

[Snautzer01]

Ding, ding, ding…

Hence why I say more is being made of something than needs to be, and why it is a groundhog. The two sides will never reach an agreement because they cannot agree on what constitutes a victory. Disagreeing with the conclusions does not automatically mean someone's work either.



Edit: I am confusing Dana with Calum, so I removed that part to my post. My apologies.

Ding ding ding. Yes Calum too. And who was involved in that one now?

I will not invite writers again to this site.

But enough. I said my piece.
Still keep on posting eBay because of continues site records.
Have a good day

 

[Snautzer01]

i don't think anyone is rubbishing anyone's books

I am sorry, but that is most certainly not the case. It was. Hence the ruffing of feathers.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You do realize those are 2 different words right? That is why I worded my post(s) the way I did. If they meant the same thing you would be in charge of censoring people, I do not think that is what you do.
Have I called for censorship? No. It would be nice if you noticed which words I am using.

Total agreement with your latest message, one I have been trying to get going over the last dozen posts. If you have any data to share, please do. Same for anyone else.

Please do not insult me. I'm well aware of the meaning of the two words.

If I moderate someone because of their opinion it's defacto censorship. Its not my job to moderate someone's opinion.

 

[Snautzer01]

You do realize those are 2 different words right? That is why I worded my post(s) the way I did. If they meant the same thing you would be in charge of censoring people, I do not think that is what you do.
Have I called for censorship? No. It would be nice if you noticed which words I am using.

Total agreement with your latest message, one I have been trying to get going over the last dozen posts. If you have any data to share, please do. Same for anyone else.

Dear L Luft.4 . Please let it go. There is no gain to make, just angry posts.
I think the work you guys have done speaks for it self.
It will be quoted in many other research and books i am sure of that.
Even in solid research there will be some that see it differently. Thats ok.
At least a lot of more people will know about the book.
Hope in future discussions you will chime in.

Regards.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ding ding ding. Yes Calum too. And who was involved in that one now?

I will not invite writers again to this site.

But enough. I said my piece.
Still keep on posting eBay because of continues site records.
Have a good day

Are you blaming me for Calum? Seriously? I know you don't like me, but do not ever blame me for something I did not do. I never did anything to Calum or said anything about his books.

I defended him against the arrogant prick who came here to attack him. I defended his book as well. Calum was the one who acted like a child and had his account deleted.

You have a problem with me Schnautzer? Then respond to the PMs I sent you a long time ago, rather than ignore them.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Dear L Luft.4 . Please let it go. There is no gain to make, just angry posts.
I think the work you guys have done speaks for it self.
It will be quoted in many other research and books i am sure of that.
Even in solid research there will be some that see it differently. Thats ok.
At least a lot of more people will know about the book.
Hope in future discussions you will chime in.

Regards.

Schnauzer, where have I said anything about his book or his research?

 

[Snautzer01]

You have a problem with me Schnautzer

Are you serious? Why would i ?

But cool down an read what you just wrote.

As a moderator.

 

[Snautzer01]

Schnauzer, where have I said anything about his book or his research?

I was not adressing you hence the luft.4. If i wanted to adress you i would.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was not adressing you hence the luft.4. If i wanted to adress you i would.

You were addressing a response he made to me…

My apologies for misunderstanding you though.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Are you serious? Why would i ?

But cool down an read what you just wrote.

As a moderator.

Sure, you seem to be blaming me for Calum and other who have left here.

 

[CHen10]

The story about Callum sounds interesting. If it's not an issue, could someone explain what happened exactly or maybe send me a pm? I understand I sound a bit nosy lol.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The story about Callum sounds interesting. If it's not an issue, could someone explain what happened exactly or maybe send me a pm? I understand I sound a bit nosy lol.

A while back someone attacked Calum and his book. This was a very personal attack as well. Calum was upset, rightfully so.

We moderators defended Calum and his book. This poster who was attacking him was way out of line. At one point, the poster accused us moderators of some things, and said we would delete one his posts to censor him.

Anyhow, after everything was done Calum changed his profile picture to say "Leaving the Forum" and sadly asked the moderator staff to delete all his posts. We told him we would not do that because it would mess the flow of threads up. He then sadly asked to have his account deleted, which we complied with as we cannot force anyone to remain here.

It was a very unfortunate situation.

 

[Nick Beale]

It would entail a significant study, which is something I'd actually DO if I could find the primary sources to do it with. To date, I cannot find those sources, and I am left with the scores as awarded. I will NOT arbitrarily change someone's score because his victory list seem to be abnormal to someone in a forum.

By the way, when you say 25% certification rate for Erich Hartmann, what sources are you comparing his kill list with that show a 25% verification rate?

Surviving German victory claims files are downloadable from the Bundesarchiv (file RL 5/1451 for example), RAF Squadrons' Operations Record Books are downloadable from the UK National Archives, USAAF Missing Air Crew Reports are available on Fold3.com (and elsewhere, I think). This will give you what you need to compare a sample of German accredited victories with losses by the Western Allies.

If you find, as you almost certainly will, cases where more German victories were accredited than Allied aircraft were lost or even damaged then logically it would seem that you should accept that accredited totals are not wholly reliable.

I've actually done this exercise, for example with I./JG 2's deployment to Italy from February to April 1944. They claimed 52 victories against actual Allied losses of 20–25 in the combats concerned.