Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
^ This.
I agree. Sounds good to me!
I agree. Sounds good to me!
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?
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.As for censorship, you have called the moderation
Ding ding ding. Yes Calum too. And who was involved in that one now?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.
I am sorry, but that is most certainly not the case. It was. Hence the ruffing of feathers.i don't think anyone is rubbishing anyone's books
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.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.
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
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.
Are you serious? Why would i ?You have a problem with me Schnautzer
I was not adressing you hence the luft.4. If i wanted to adress you i would.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.
Are you serious? Why would i ?
But cool down an read what you just wrote.
As a moderator.
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.
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.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?