GregP
Major
PanzerFroth Light? Hefeweizale? PanzerStein? StukaLicious Ale? HorniseBrew?
Last edited:
A rational approach to debates and 'best' arguments...?
- Thread starter Wingspanner
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No I don't think it will help this one!!
Attachments
I got this off another forum many years back and thought the way this thread is going that this would be appropriate here. I have edited for brevity here. Enjoy!!
This is advice for forum newbies on how to participate in debates.
How to Participate in Aviation Debates
by Frank "Dart" Giger
Everyone who has been a regular on an aviation forum has seen and read the Great Flaming Debate threads. Not everyone, however, knows the difference between a laminar wing and a regular airfoil, and so they can feel left out of all the fun.
Despair not! I will help you learn how to not only participate meaningfully in such threads, but not come off as the ignorant hayseed you are. Or, at least, the ignorant hayseed that I am.
There are a few rules, however, that one must be aware of before diving in to help stir it up:
1. Some take aviation debates very seriously, and when we begin to muddy up the waters, great care must be made not to offend. When the thread turns to personal attacks, either ignore it or gently withdraw for a few pages. Don't worry, a healthy aviation debate will go on for a solid week or two.
2. Don't make things up out of whole cloth. You'll soon be unmasked and blow the whole deal. Worse, if you're clever enough, someone will believe what you're writing is true, and you'll see your fiction quoted six months later as a fact.
3. Remember that part of the enjoyment of aviation discussions is that one can learn something, usually accidentally.
4. Google is your sword and shield, and Babblefish your alibi.
The way we're going to participate is to add in variables that generate further discussion in defense of the many Authoritative Opinions and give ourselves a series of points based on the outcome.
Fundamentals of an Aviation Debate
The First Expert will announce an Authoritative Opinion, usually in the negative, about the flight performance or capability of the aircraft. He will usually cite a reference.
The Second Expert will retort with an Authoritative Opinion of his own, also in the negative, but either against the First Expert or against the aircraft in a different way. He will usually disparage the First Expert's reference, supplying one of his own.
Additional Experts with either their own Authoritative Opinion or support for one of the first given, supplying helpful hints and references of their own.
Eventually the thread is locked by a moderator because it's degenerated to name calling. Name calling can be in the form of personal, nationality based, player preference slurs, or anything else. You'll see it all in a really successful aviation debate.
How, you ask, are we going to jump in when we barely know the term for the thing in the front of a Mustang that goes round and round is?* Simple! We're going to learn some real quick facts about World War Two aircraft testing, and some easy to remember terms and acronyms!
How World War Two Aircraft Were Tested
and the Source of Authoritative Opinion
1. Factory tests. Yes, gentle reader, the company that stood to make hundreds of thousands of dollars should the airplane be selected for production often supplied the official performance tests used in determining purchase. Apparently, corporate executives were far too virtuous in the 1930's and '40's to ever fudge the numbers or make special treatment available to their prototypes or production samples in order to make a few million dollars. The Lysander's original role as a dive bomber and the P-39 as a bomber interceptor are prime examples of this. Lots to muddy the water with.
2. Captured aircraft. Often aircraft were captured in working condition, needing only slight repairs, and were flight tested. These were not factory fresh jobs that came with pilots that had worked with them from prototype and helped write the manuals. No, it was by generally experienced pilots working with an unfamiliar aircraft with no manuals, and the data plates and instruments in a foreign language. Not a lot of imagination is needed to see the weakness here.
3. Hostile agencies. The Soviets had a peculiar system of testing, where rival factories would test each other's designs as well as a separate auditing agency to check both of the flight test data. Being too far off of the truth had serious – Siberia serious – consequences for everyone involved. However, none of the tests ever came out the same, giving lots of wiggle room.
4. Civilian owned WWII aircraft used for demonstration or racing flights today. Highly polished Mustangs with the seams full of putty (to make them more aerodynamic) are still on the air racing circuit.
5. Historical accounts of WWII pilots. Joe Average usually doesn't write a book about his exploits on scoring one half of a kill during his six months in theatre. We have, in the main, the excellent pilot's account of his experiences. What they invariably tell us is the exciting, unusual stuff, as that's what we want to hear. Pilots tend to praise the type of aircraft that they had the most success in or allowed them to come home for obvious reasons. Care must be made not to denigrate or tarnish the actual pilot's recollection or actions during the war, but perspective must be maintained.
6. NACA. It's an agency in the USA that does flight tests. NACA stands for North American Chart Agency (or, possibly, Not Another Chart Administration or something like that), and they muck around with all sorts of planes, including captured ones, factory production models, etc. Some think they're the High Holy of flight tests, but they're not always perfect, often times leaving out the complete model variant designation of an aircraft. What does it matter if a plane has the BR549 or the BR549-A engine? I have no idea, but if it's a possibility that it could be one or the other (but is unclear) we have an opening.
7. Licensed production models by countries other than the one that designed and built it. Lots of fun to be had here, as manufacturing differences may have an impact on performance.
8. Perfect vs. field performance. Oh, the grand Fuel Debate. Fuel of different octanes were used at different times in the same planes; the Germans, in fact, used synthetics in large quantities.
This is advice for forum newbies on how to participate in debates.
How to Participate in Aviation Debates
by Frank "Dart" Giger
Everyone who has been a regular on an aviation forum has seen and read the Great Flaming Debate threads. Not everyone, however, knows the difference between a laminar wing and a regular airfoil, and so they can feel left out of all the fun.
Despair not! I will help you learn how to not only participate meaningfully in such threads, but not come off as the ignorant hayseed you are. Or, at least, the ignorant hayseed that I am.
There are a few rules, however, that one must be aware of before diving in to help stir it up:
1. Some take aviation debates very seriously, and when we begin to muddy up the waters, great care must be made not to offend. When the thread turns to personal attacks, either ignore it or gently withdraw for a few pages. Don't worry, a healthy aviation debate will go on for a solid week or two.
2. Don't make things up out of whole cloth. You'll soon be unmasked and blow the whole deal. Worse, if you're clever enough, someone will believe what you're writing is true, and you'll see your fiction quoted six months later as a fact.
3. Remember that part of the enjoyment of aviation discussions is that one can learn something, usually accidentally.
4. Google is your sword and shield, and Babblefish your alibi.
The way we're going to participate is to add in variables that generate further discussion in defense of the many Authoritative Opinions and give ourselves a series of points based on the outcome.
Fundamentals of an Aviation Debate
The First Expert will announce an Authoritative Opinion, usually in the negative, about the flight performance or capability of the aircraft. He will usually cite a reference.
The Second Expert will retort with an Authoritative Opinion of his own, also in the negative, but either against the First Expert or against the aircraft in a different way. He will usually disparage the First Expert's reference, supplying one of his own.
Additional Experts with either their own Authoritative Opinion or support for one of the first given, supplying helpful hints and references of their own.
Eventually the thread is locked by a moderator because it's degenerated to name calling. Name calling can be in the form of personal, nationality based, player preference slurs, or anything else. You'll see it all in a really successful aviation debate.
How, you ask, are we going to jump in when we barely know the term for the thing in the front of a Mustang that goes round and round is?* Simple! We're going to learn some real quick facts about World War Two aircraft testing, and some easy to remember terms and acronyms!
How World War Two Aircraft Were Tested
and the Source of Authoritative Opinion
1. Factory tests. Yes, gentle reader, the company that stood to make hundreds of thousands of dollars should the airplane be selected for production often supplied the official performance tests used in determining purchase. Apparently, corporate executives were far too virtuous in the 1930's and '40's to ever fudge the numbers or make special treatment available to their prototypes or production samples in order to make a few million dollars. The Lysander's original role as a dive bomber and the P-39 as a bomber interceptor are prime examples of this. Lots to muddy the water with.
2. Captured aircraft. Often aircraft were captured in working condition, needing only slight repairs, and were flight tested. These were not factory fresh jobs that came with pilots that had worked with them from prototype and helped write the manuals. No, it was by generally experienced pilots working with an unfamiliar aircraft with no manuals, and the data plates and instruments in a foreign language. Not a lot of imagination is needed to see the weakness here.
3. Hostile agencies. The Soviets had a peculiar system of testing, where rival factories would test each other's designs as well as a separate auditing agency to check both of the flight test data. Being too far off of the truth had serious – Siberia serious – consequences for everyone involved. However, none of the tests ever came out the same, giving lots of wiggle room.
4. Civilian owned WWII aircraft used for demonstration or racing flights today. Highly polished Mustangs with the seams full of putty (to make them more aerodynamic) are still on the air racing circuit.
5. Historical accounts of WWII pilots. Joe Average usually doesn't write a book about his exploits on scoring one half of a kill during his six months in theatre. We have, in the main, the excellent pilot's account of his experiences. What they invariably tell us is the exciting, unusual stuff, as that's what we want to hear. Pilots tend to praise the type of aircraft that they had the most success in or allowed them to come home for obvious reasons. Care must be made not to denigrate or tarnish the actual pilot's recollection or actions during the war, but perspective must be maintained.
6. NACA. It's an agency in the USA that does flight tests. NACA stands for North American Chart Agency (or, possibly, Not Another Chart Administration or something like that), and they muck around with all sorts of planes, including captured ones, factory production models, etc. Some think they're the High Holy of flight tests, but they're not always perfect, often times leaving out the complete model variant designation of an aircraft. What does it matter if a plane has the BR549 or the BR549-A engine? I have no idea, but if it's a possibility that it could be one or the other (but is unclear) we have an opening.
7. Licensed production models by countries other than the one that designed and built it. Lots of fun to be had here, as manufacturing differences may have an impact on performance.
8. Perfect vs. field performance. Oh, the grand Fuel Debate. Fuel of different octanes were used at different times in the same planes; the Germans, in fact, used synthetics in large quantities.
The Chart
Our good friend, the chart. Without it, no aviation debate is worth a darned, and it is the first and most effective entry point into the conversation. "Got Chart?" is the same as writing "Put up or shut up." The neat thing is that the experten all have charts for the same aircraft that say different things. Every single one of them is credible within their own rights, and all of them are wrong in that each applies generalizations to the whole of a population of aircraft through the testing of an individual of one.
The designers and pilots of the time knew this, of course, which is why they gave guidance in the form of generalizations that fudged five or ten percent on the side of safety to what the charts said. If a tested plane entered a stall at 90 MPH, they'd put up a placard warning that stalls may happen at 95 or 100 MPH.
Today we have the Internet and computer simulations. No such common sense is required.
Then again, the charts, when made, were drawn up by engineers for engineers and had a big red TOP SECRET written on the outside of the folder. They weren't writing for you and me to discuss and compare over the Internet as an afternoon's diversion.
Anyhow, you gotta have charts in an aviaiton debate. "Where's the Chart?" is a good way to jump in to the mix. Don't worry; you don't have to actually be able to read it. Others will do it for you.
However, since you knew to ask for the chart, you're clearly knowledgeable enough to sit in on the bull session.
Stirring it Up
The whole key is to keep everyone moving forward by asking for clarifications, NOT by challenging their claims.
Let's say I claim that the opinion is wrong in the performance of the Spitfire, as a guy in another Bf-109 thread stated he has a pilot's report that it turned inside the Spitfire in flight.
Bad start to an aviation debate, as there are too many variables that could indicate this issue, from energy levels at the start of the engagement to trim, throttle settings, and plain old skill level. But that's how they usually start.
The novice may immediately slam down the gauntlet with a "Got Chart" statement, but that's overkill. The proper flow of discussion is:
1. Ask for clarification on model/sub variant of participants.
2. Ask about general conditions – altitude, speed, etc.
3. Ask who was flying the 109.
4. Wait for someone to cite a fact. A fact involves two of the following factors – altitude, speed, time, manifold pressure, mixture setting, or super charger setting.
E
xample: "Well, below 3,000 feet, the turn radius was 12.3 seconds for…"
1. Now you can ask for a chart.
2. Ask for another source for a chart showing the same thing.
Example: "Yes, that looks like NACA; but the TAPiCH test agency did tests on the Yak-3 that were different, IIRC. Anybody have those? I lent my copy of Chkalov Tashkent Industrial Aircraft Association, A History (volume four) to the University last month."
1. Google the aircraft in question to see other debates, flight tests, and pilot accounts. Heck, I just googled the TAPiCH organization – didn't have a clue they existed or even did flight testing in WWII – looking for the proper way TsAGI (one of two main Soviet flight testing organizations) was abbreviated.
2. Bring in pilot accounts as a question. "But I read that Flight Sergeant Fishenchips turned inside of not one, but two 109's in an account written in 1941…" Be ready to provide a link to the pilot account, by-the-way.
3. Ask for more information and explanation. Even if the answer is well written and easy to understand, someone else will take issue with it or try to explain it better…leading to a tangential debate over the importance of manifold pressure, gravity fed carburetors, etc.
There is one final warning: Don't be the one to type "IBTL" in an aviation thread. The mods hate that. Chances are we'll just edit the one bad post out (in order to save an otherwise great thread) and then you'll look silly.
And yes, it's that easy! Don't put on airs, rely on those with too much research behind them to do the heavy lifting, and read a little bit on the side to (perhaps) bring something meaningful into the discussion/debate. Be courteous, as always, and try to learn something along the way.
Our good friend, the chart. Without it, no aviation debate is worth a darned, and it is the first and most effective entry point into the conversation. "Got Chart?" is the same as writing "Put up or shut up." The neat thing is that the experten all have charts for the same aircraft that say different things. Every single one of them is credible within their own rights, and all of them are wrong in that each applies generalizations to the whole of a population of aircraft through the testing of an individual of one.
The designers and pilots of the time knew this, of course, which is why they gave guidance in the form of generalizations that fudged five or ten percent on the side of safety to what the charts said. If a tested plane entered a stall at 90 MPH, they'd put up a placard warning that stalls may happen at 95 or 100 MPH.
Today we have the Internet and computer simulations. No such common sense is required.
Then again, the charts, when made, were drawn up by engineers for engineers and had a big red TOP SECRET written on the outside of the folder. They weren't writing for you and me to discuss and compare over the Internet as an afternoon's diversion.
Anyhow, you gotta have charts in an aviaiton debate. "Where's the Chart?" is a good way to jump in to the mix. Don't worry; you don't have to actually be able to read it. Others will do it for you.
However, since you knew to ask for the chart, you're clearly knowledgeable enough to sit in on the bull session.
Stirring it Up
The whole key is to keep everyone moving forward by asking for clarifications, NOT by challenging their claims.
Let's say I claim that the opinion is wrong in the performance of the Spitfire, as a guy in another Bf-109 thread stated he has a pilot's report that it turned inside the Spitfire in flight.
Bad start to an aviation debate, as there are too many variables that could indicate this issue, from energy levels at the start of the engagement to trim, throttle settings, and plain old skill level. But that's how they usually start.
The novice may immediately slam down the gauntlet with a "Got Chart" statement, but that's overkill. The proper flow of discussion is:
1. Ask for clarification on model/sub variant of participants.
2. Ask about general conditions – altitude, speed, etc.
3. Ask who was flying the 109.
4. Wait for someone to cite a fact. A fact involves two of the following factors – altitude, speed, time, manifold pressure, mixture setting, or super charger setting.
E
xample: "Well, below 3,000 feet, the turn radius was 12.3 seconds for…"
1. Now you can ask for a chart.
2. Ask for another source for a chart showing the same thing.
Example: "Yes, that looks like NACA; but the TAPiCH test agency did tests on the Yak-3 that were different, IIRC. Anybody have those? I lent my copy of Chkalov Tashkent Industrial Aircraft Association, A History (volume four) to the University last month."
1. Google the aircraft in question to see other debates, flight tests, and pilot accounts. Heck, I just googled the TAPiCH organization – didn't have a clue they existed or even did flight testing in WWII – looking for the proper way TsAGI (one of two main Soviet flight testing organizations) was abbreviated.
2. Bring in pilot accounts as a question. "But I read that Flight Sergeant Fishenchips turned inside of not one, but two 109's in an account written in 1941…" Be ready to provide a link to the pilot account, by-the-way.
3. Ask for more information and explanation. Even if the answer is well written and easy to understand, someone else will take issue with it or try to explain it better…leading to a tangential debate over the importance of manifold pressure, gravity fed carburetors, etc.
There is one final warning: Don't be the one to type "IBTL" in an aviation thread. The mods hate that. Chances are we'll just edit the one bad post out (in order to save an otherwise great thread) and then you'll look silly.
And yes, it's that easy! Don't put on airs, rely on those with too much research behind them to do the heavy lifting, and read a little bit on the side to (perhaps) bring something meaningful into the discussion/debate. Be courteous, as always, and try to learn something along the way.
parsifal
Colonel
great posts....
Is that the current GAF ground crew?
Mind you the USN always had a little glamour...
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
ok, that was boring. 
Back to the alcohol!
The daily prayer
Our Lager, which art in barrels
hallowed be thy drink
thy will be drunk
I will be drunk
at home and in bars and taverns
give us this day our foamy head
and forgive us our spillages
as we forgive those who spillage against us
lead us not into incarceration, but deliver us from hangovers
for thine is the porter, the lager and the pilsner
forever and ever,
barmen!
Back to the alcohol!
The daily prayer
Our Lager, which art in barrels
hallowed be thy drink
thy will be drunk
I will be drunk
at home and in bars and taverns
give us this day our foamy head
and forgive us our spillages
as we forgive those who spillage against us
lead us not into incarceration, but deliver us from hangovers
for thine is the porter, the lager and the pilsner
forever and ever,
barmen!
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Good one Njaco! I like that.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
GregP
Major
What the hell is "IBTL" ? I might type it in drunken stupor accidentally if attacked while posting, but don't kow what it means ... so probably not.
Italian Butts Take Love?
Don't DO this. Define your abbreviations ... Please .... otherwise we don't know what the heck you're talking about. The rest makes some sense to someone who is rational, but some might not agree with it. I happen to do so.
Italian Butts Take Love?
Don't DO this. Define your abbreviations ... Please .... otherwise we don't know what the heck you're talking about. The rest makes some sense to someone who is rational, but some might not agree with it. I happen to do so.
Last edited:
A4K
Brigadier General
A rational approach to forum topic threads, in my experience: Don't read them if you don't want a fight on your hands.
In my opinion, 80% of the 'facts' in these threads are BS, and so many personal arguments have broken out just because book 'A' contradicts book 'B' and clever clogs 'A' thinks 'B' is a d!ckhead for believing book 'B'...
Thing is, info will always contradict, photos can be deceiving, and memory is not to be relied on (very fallible, and no two people see the same event the same way). That isn't the problem as such, though it do wish authors would get their bloody facts straight...
Problem is rather how some of our clever clogs attack the messenger first, then 'correct' the info with their version. Why do they assume theirs is correct?
I reckon if people are really interested in helping inform others here TO LEARN and not just on a personal ego-trip, then better to write instead 'According to (book 'A'), ...' , rather than 'You do yourself no favours writing such rubbish' etc, as I have received at times from certain members. Those sort of comments just have the effect of p!ssing people off rather than wanting to check around to confirm or deny the other version, no-one any wiser for the experience.
(By the way: I do apologise to other members for my own reactions to said people at times, and I do bite my tongue alot more than most realise with certain members/ comments. I like to get on with people as much as I can, but have a very short fuse when it comes to smart@sses and bullies, and such comments get my back up. Sorry to others and no, I'm not proud of my lack of tolerance - simply hate people who enjoy putting the boot in for no good reason)
-end of blurb, and now you know why I don't contribute my own information very often.
In my opinion, 80% of the 'facts' in these threads are BS, and so many personal arguments have broken out just because book 'A' contradicts book 'B' and clever clogs 'A' thinks 'B' is a d!ckhead for believing book 'B'...
Thing is, info will always contradict, photos can be deceiving, and memory is not to be relied on (very fallible, and no two people see the same event the same way). That isn't the problem as such, though it do wish authors would get their bloody facts straight...
Problem is rather how some of our clever clogs attack the messenger first, then 'correct' the info with their version. Why do they assume theirs is correct?
I reckon if people are really interested in helping inform others here TO LEARN and not just on a personal ego-trip, then better to write instead 'According to (book 'A'), ...' , rather than 'You do yourself no favours writing such rubbish' etc, as I have received at times from certain members. Those sort of comments just have the effect of p!ssing people off rather than wanting to check around to confirm or deny the other version, no-one any wiser for the experience.
(By the way: I do apologise to other members for my own reactions to said people at times, and I do bite my tongue alot more than most realise with certain members/ comments. I like to get on with people as much as I can, but have a very short fuse when it comes to smart@sses and bullies, and such comments get my back up. Sorry to others and no, I'm not proud of my lack of tolerance - simply hate people who enjoy putting the boot in for no good reason)
-end of blurb, and now you know why I don't contribute my own information very often.
Last edited:
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
In Before They Lock. Basically it means I am saying something stupid or replying to something stupid before the mods lock the thread. Mainly used by stupid people.
I presented this article from the author as he wrote it.
Google works pretty good which is where I found out what it meant.
parsifal
Colonel
Good advice I think
In the old days, people wanting to promote a POV generally needed to undertake serious research and then publish their findings in some form (that might be a research paper, a magazine article, a book, whatever). Then an unspecified number of peers would review that work, and the work either accepted, or rejected, depending on the veracity that peer review process concluded about the works involved.
Then there were what might be referred to as the casual conversations....the types that occur in the pub, or over the dinner table. Assertions made without any reall cross referencing or checks. p[eople tend to say anything in those conversations. They are unreferenced, uncorroborated startements of opinion, that cannot be verified, and just usually end up in an argument, unless the participants are of a like mind, or one or both particiapants are very tolerant.
The internet has changed all that. The "dinner table", the "pub", the "forum" is much larger, and people try to pass off written statements as well researched facts. The participants are far from the same or like minded. And, most of the participants are very opinionated. People come into this place for various reasons, and from different backgrounds and experiences, but most of us believe in the superiority of our knowledge. In the context of the wading pool that is our local environment, we are usually some of the best in that environment. we come into this place, and places like it, strong in the belief of our own convictions. But when confronted with other people, who are just as strong in their beliefs, which invariably are different to our own, trouble is in the making.
The environment does not lend itself to considered opinion or the exchange of ideas. But it does lend itself to challenging and offering different perspectiveto the beliefs that we as members tend to cling to. The forum is inherently confrontatioonal, and the mods would do well to take that into consideration as they manage the children so to speak. We all would. if you dont want an argument, dont get in the ring. I believe the line that should be drawn should be a line where the arguments leads to any or all of the following
1) Straight up insults, or flaming of the thread
2) Derailment from the original topic
3) Zero or low benefit to the foum members
4) Statements that are clearly or obviously political or racist(and dare I say it, overtly sexist) in intent
I too apologise for the many past transgressions to my own self imposed code of conduct.
And dont believe what you read on the Internet
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
