Care to explain?
A look at German fighter Ace kill claims (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter RCAFson
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 as you have yet to do so (apparently only with me).
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.
Wrong! As a moderator it is not my job to make people read, agree, understand, or comprehend something. Everyone can have their own opinion, interpret, analyze, or evaluate the facts or data 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?
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 ?
GregP
Major
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!
I never said you said I should. Who is misrepresenting words now? You said I should "also mod those who refuse to read pages of a book sent for them to read."
That is not my job, and that is what I told you.
Greg is telling you that he does not agree with your conclusions to the data you have in your book. So what? That's his right. Its not my job to moderate his opinion to your conclusions, as long as it is civil. Just like its not my job to moderate your feelings to his opinion as long as you remain civil. God knows I've disagreed with Greg countless times over the years.
I got news for, Greg is not agreeing with your conclusions is not smearing your book or insulting you. He even said he appreciates the research you did, but does not agree with the conclusion because does not agree with the premise that there has to be an associated confirmation report with each kill. And objectively speaking, there is in fact a good argument for that as well. So I can completely understand both of your arguments.
It seems to me, you are both talking past each other. At the same time stop taking everything as an attack. As an author/researcher I would assume you are aware that all research and data is scrutinized, reviewed, and debated. Sometimes a consensus is reached, sometimes there isn't.
Thank you.
Now if everyone can simply agree to constructive debate, this can be a great conversation, and not Groundhog 3.0.
As I said before, this discussion has not boiled over yet. Nothing has gone to far. Lets keep it from happening.
As I said before, this discussion has not boiled over yet. Nothing has gone to far. Lets keep it from happening.
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.
Why I ask to mod those as explicitly as I have been? Because of instances already pointed out in post 63.
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.
We could always just take say 40% off all pilots scores for the war to account for over claiming and be done with it,
thus avoiding a future Groundhog 4.0.
In any case Erich Hartman would still be the top scorer for the war.
Verifying or "unverifying" a particular individuals score without doing the same for everyone else who flew doesn't
really have a historically useful purpose to me.
thus avoiding a future Groundhog 4.0.
In any case Erich Hartman would still be the top scorer for the war.
Verifying or "unverifying" a particular individuals score without doing the same for everyone else who flew doesn't
really have a historically useful purpose to me.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I don't have a specific example handy, but I can see how the Luftwaffe having to hastily evacuate an airfield shortly before Russian tanks storm across it might engender the loss of records documenting kill claims. The same holds true going the other way.
On the other side of the coin, can you confirm that every record ever posted in files has been preserved, and is perfectly accurate, so that a comparison of archives will distill the claims vs actual counts?
That's right; you cannot.
I don't know. But I do know that evidence can be and often is destroyed or lost in a wartime situation, which -- in case you missed it -- was my point.
Since you're talking probability, which is a mathematical analysis, let's see your formulae, and then fill in those variables, and see what falls out.
You apparently missed my post above where I pointed out that overclaiming is endemic. You seem to be taking umbrage with a point that you are now yourself making, to wit that ascribing claimed victories of this or that pilot is terribly difficult to sort out even using opposing records -- which, again, may have been bombed, or burnt, or lost when the truck carrying them got dropped into a river as the bridge blew, etc etc. The exigencies of war mean that much cannot really be known, and that often we have to construct hypotheses by piecing together evidence that may also support another interpretation.
That's the nature of historiography. Demanding me to produce this or that record documenting this or that downing/false claim is simply another way of trying to propound one's point without supporting it.
The facts may remain forever unknown. Don't get upset with me over that. That's just the way reality works, despite your fondest wishes.
I can't speak to the correctness of your numbers, but I certainly take issue with such a rigid evacuated-middle reading of events. Sometimes there are things that not only do we not know, but that we simply cannot know. At that point, staking a firm claim on shaky evidence isn't convincing to me -- for either side. 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.
