ranking Dornier ace

[Mikael Olrog]

Agree Nick, gave him a book reference which lists every known kill achieved with the a Do 215, so he can look for himself if he likes.

[knusel]

Nick, if that's your honest opinion, why don't you ignore my threads altogether ?
This would make me the happiest forum member of them all
plus it would give you more time to enlighten forum members who appreciate you with your wisdom.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by knusel

Nick, if that's your honest opinion, why don't you ignore my threads altogether ?
This would make me the happiest forum member of them all
plus it would give you more time to enlighten forum members who appreciate you with your wisdom.

If you repeatedly ask for information but ignore much of what is offered to you, people are going to find that annoying. Why not take a little more interest in the sources of information which other members have tried to bring to your attention?

[knusel]

Nick Beale, many forum members are willing to share their knowledge and I meticulously collect the info they offer. However, I never gain any useful info from Nick Hector's posts, only nagging, truisms about overclaiming, Erich Hartmann stuff in a nightfighter thread and so on. The other day he also admitted that he indulges in gettings threads closed.

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by knusel

Nick Beale, many forum members are willing to share their knowledge and I meticulously collect the info they offer. However, I never gain any useful info from Nick Hector's posts, only nagging, truisms about overclaiming, Erich Hartmann stuff in a nightfighter thread and so on. The other day he also admitted that he indulges in gettings threads closed.

Only your threads at this stage, Michael/Knusel

You never get anything useful from me?
- I told you when the famous photo of Erich Hartmann in front of his Bf 109G-10 was taken. I even gave you the source to that information.

- I told you who is considered the highest scoring ace of the Dornier 17Z and you the source for that too

More arrogance, more smartarsery, more getting it wrong...

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by knusel

Nick, if that's your honest opinion, why don't you ignore my threads altogether ?
This would make me the happiest forum member of them all
plus it would give you more time to enlighten forum members who appreciate you with your wisdom.

Several reasons,
1) There's this guy right, his name's called Nick Beale. He's one of the world's most brilliant researchers of archival material. He's also MODERATOR of this forum (not that you've ever shown much respect for that...). If he says I have to ignore your threads, that's when I'll ignore them

2) You claimed in earlier posts to have a background in Pathology. A science, yes...?
So you likely have a good grasp of the concept of "peer-review" as in "per-reviewed paper" or "peer-reviewed article". If not, looks like Google is finally actually going to be of real use to you.
This forum and others like it, is the closest it gets to Peer-Review for people conducting research into the Luftwaffe of the Second World War.

Ergo: If a peer considers that you are posting faulty research, they have a right to point it out

3) Given that corrections or suggestions etc that you don't like typically result in arrogance, smartarsery (since your very earliest posts) and just more posts from the same discredited or flimsy sources, I am quite happy to be the Albatross around your neck for as long as you continue to post on this forum in similar vein...

One thing you really need to consider:

Nick Beale may not always agree with my points of view, but he shows an agreement with my central themes in "your" threads and others...

...I have yet to see him fully endorse your point of view, as evidenced by the several closed threads that have occurred. If you think that you're going about things the right way, there's PROOF you're not.

Happy posting. I happily reply...

[knusel]

Back to the topic of that thread.
Anyone interested in finding out who scored the most confirmed claims in a Do 17, Do 215, Do 217, respectively ?