|
Re: Walther Dahl
Not sure what makes you think that, Nick. Who are you referring to? Are you sure that's not just your imagination and bias running riot in your own mind?
Peter[/quote]
Peter,
Yes, let's talk about imagination and bias for a moment, shall we?
Once again you try to paint me as somebody with psychological issues because I make a stand against Knusel's use of sources that are almost good enough to be called dodgy and the fact that he volunteers to ignore the simple concept that if (for example) Hartmann's tally consists of a disproportionate amount of overclaims, then does he really deserve the title of "top ace". Which then brings the question:
So what is the POINT of all these lists he is "meticulously, painstakingly" compiling?
In an age when we finally CAN compare the victories and losses of both sides, the mere listing of men's names with numbers beside them
Hartmann 352
Barkhorn 301
Rall 275... etc....
Is utterly obsolete.
This is a concept that the moderator, Nick Beale, has also expressed his agreement of yet you never challenge him on that point, Peter. Nor does Knusel answer that question satisfactorily. In fact, Knusel gets quite rude and speaks down to people that challenge him on it. Kind of belies his "good evening gentlemen / have a nice Friday" act. More fool anyone hoodwinked by it.
I say to you, not for the first time, that you have walked in halfway into the discussion, picked a side and been blinded to the issues of that side...
The pair of you dare to wonder why Knusel feels discriminated against. It's as easy as this, if you talk down to a moderator, only ever milk the forum for as much as info as you can get for free, never answer anyone else's query and volunteer to give people the "internet version of the silent treatment" when they call you out on it (I say again, including moderators)... ....you can't expect them to defend you when somebody stands up to you and has given up on being polite about it.
Take the time to read and spend the money on a decent book that looks at BOTH sides of an aerial campaign instead of engaging in endless "What do you think of this Wikipedia article, Michael? "Oh I googled it and Osprey says this Peter" discussions.
And you know what, I'll risk a ban rather than leave all this unsaid because this crud is the slow death of a once great forum. The pair of you are asking professional authors and dedicated researchers to give you information that they have spend valuable time and money on.... ...for free. And when you are not doing that, you are discussing sources that do indeed contain the information but in plagiarised form.
What about the profit the authors and researchers deserve for their hard work....? You're asking for their help here and all the rest of the time undermining their hard work and profits.
So yes, think what you like. And yes, Nick Beale and John Beaman, go ahead and ban me if you wish. It's time these two were bloody well told.
|