Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If you don't mean to sound sarcastic or to accuse someone of forgetting, disremebering, or just being inept , then don't write it so it sounds that way.
Sounds that way to a reader. If you don't mean to sound sarcastic or to accuse someone of forgetting, disremebering, or just being inept , then don't write it so it sounds that way.
If you disagree, write that without personal references to some perceived fault. It plays a LOT better. You have good arguments and good opinions, but the personal stuff obscures it sometimes.
To disagree with a TV program, state that simply. Don't say that the program cannot possibly be biased (sarcastic) and add roll-eyes (also sarcastic). That is the definition of sarcasm, in anybody's book and will eleicit a reaction, usually negative, from someone (sorry it was me). It makes people automatically disagree with you due to the implied sarcasm. Basic human emotions ensure that.
I have a good time going back and forth with you unless you post that I must be disrmemebring things or am somehow at fault for thinking the way I do. I assure you, I think the way I do becasue of my experiences and accumulated stock of information, just as you do. Nothing to do with an agenda and definitely NOT accusing YOU of not knowing what you have read or ecperienced.
Not a pesonal attack on Ratsel just asking for pleasant discourse in lieu of a dissenting opinion with personal references attached. You will either understand and accept or you won't. I hope you do, and I hope you stay a frequent-contributing poster. I've been chastised for the same type of comments and I let myself cool down a bit these days before posting a retort that I might regret later. I don't always succeed and must beg occasional fiorgiveness from the object of the retort. I hope you understand that.
My retorts were similar to yours when I got kicked off this site more than 4 years ago. Since being allowed back, I re-read my own posts and I undertsand the beef at the time ... I suppose I'm milder now and hope you might be, too, on occasion maybe not always ...
So, let me understand what you are saying. You are claiming that when Bud Anderson, who was on the show, said that "they were coming around and we were coming around, in a big left circle, this goes about two times. Each time we go around I'm closer to getting in trail with them", he was lying?yep "Dogfight" is never biased towards Americanslol
How well Corsair compares vs. a contemporary Seafire as a fleet defense fighter?
So, let me understand what you are saying. You are claiming that when Bud Anderson, who was on the show, said that "they were coming around and we were coming around, in a big left circle, this goes about two times. Each time we go around I'm closer to getting in trail with them", he was lying?
I have the Joint Fighter Conference Report and it is interesting to read but it still only represents the opinions of pilots who flew the airplanes. In other words the opinions are subjective. As far as Seafire is concerned the prevailing opinion was that it was outdated. Oddly in reading the opinions on all the AC some were at total variance with others. I had always wondered why the F4U4 did not rate higher in the ratings published by Dean in "America's Hundred Thousand" The reason was that only three pilots flew it, one British and two Navy. There were almost no comments so a really high performance fighter was hardly considered in the final rankings.
AGAIN point out one instance when I said anybody is lying or even implied so. What I'm saying is that dogfight gets only one side of the story, never the other, unlike Greatest tank Battles which shows a fair comparison.. from now on, I refrain from posting. I'll just read and enjoy.
Kindest Regards
I would love to see dogfights from other points of view, if we could just find someone to invest the money!