You, the one that said I would never accuse you of overloading a small personal orifice with a very large one to your face -and further noted in your PM ... in what most people would deem in a threatening manner.
Did I hurt your wittle feeblings? Why don't you go ahead an cut and paste that "threatening manner" for all to read for themselves.
Here 'tis Jank
"One last note drgndog. I don't appreciate the tough guy behind the anonymous posting from the safety of my computer bullshit. You would never take this tone to my face. Trust me."
So, I took this to have the following meaning. 1.) you didn't respond well to my bet proposal. 2.) You "ASSUMED" that I would not accuse you of having an Alligator mouth overloading a canary ass" without remaining anonymous. 3.) You ASSUME that I would never say that to your face, and 4.) you IMPLIED that I would be extremely sorry if I did. The "trust me" ensured that I could take your implied threat seriously.
For you, and just for you on the one time special I immediately responded with my name and address to ensure that if you wanted to pursue this, you could find me. Not worried about you or black helicopters.
Tell me, do those black helicopter follow you around too?
I sent you a PM giving my address in case you wanted to 'drop by'.
Now why the Hell would I want to do that Bill? Do you think we're best buds? Do you think I'm gay?
My experience (and maybe yours) is that when one resorts to ad hominum attacks aout gay folks, there is an underlying fear on the part of the attacker. That is probably the worst thing you can imagine someone calling you - or maybe you have underlying concerns that you might be one. It's OK Jank, you're gonna be alright. I won't slip up on you when you drop soap.
Does that mean you're NOT coming by to kick my ass because I hurt your feelers?
It should be clear to you that a.) I have no concern of you, b.) your real or implied threats, or c.) your pitiful attempts at insults.
It's also clear to me that If I took umbrage with you, that you wish to remain secure behind your keyboard? Or did I assume incorrectly? I mean you no harm but I will not be threatened on the basis that I am 'afraid' to say something derogatory directly in your face. I mean whatta ya gonna do to me, right - but pout when I don't agree?
You disparaged that as a fake address and questioned my integrity
I notice you didn't lash out with a "How dare you!" I bet you've got a glove handy to slap my face if I happen to "drop by."
LOL - see above for amatuer pschoanalysis
I'll tell you what, answer the question I have asked six times now. That one concerns your hypocrisy. Then we'll move on to your sense of "integrity."
Which one of the repetitive incorrect quotations that I have answered six times - see above posts - all the above posts.
On your "final thought," I really don't know. For me to ponder that thought, I would need to presume the accuracy of the figures you pose and also presume that the sole relevant independent variable is six vs. eight wing mounted guns that causes the observed dependent variable.
Ah, that's the dreadful thing about statistics isn't it. The 'ace in a day' lists can befound in American Fighter Aces by Hess, Fighter Aces of USA by Toliver and Constable, plus many others. You can cross reference dates and times and squadrons via Olynyk's Stars and Bars. Four from 56th including Christensen's six Ju 52's, Herschel Green and Neal Kirby in PTO
But Jank - you can't even remotely decide how to measure the effectiveness of more guns and ammo than those pitiful four and six gunners, can you? I sure can't. I'll offer an opinion totally unsupported mathmatically - namely that the slight manuever advantage (F6F, F4U, P-51 and P-38) in both horizontal, superior speed to most of the enemy fighter they fought, and vertical vertical (climb) and only slight disadvantage (dive), of all the other fighters compared to P-47, enabled them to stay engaged longer.
What is your thesis?
Chew on that while you peruse Wikipedia.
Like you, I use Wikipedia and all such websites with circumspection - but I was compelled to draw your attention to the three links because they all agreed with each other on "max ordnance load" of 2,500 pounds - at variance with your claims but zero links from you. I suspect you looked at all of those, plus more, plus every book you had and were stalled in your zeal to prove that the P-47 could carry the same load as the Ensign Killer - and by a wide margin.
You tend to ignore data that doesn't fit your assumptions and manufacture assumptions on irrelevent data.
Again, I don't know where this is going. Good day to you to sir.