Monolog?

[galgos]

Gentlemen, fellow forumites:
May I suggest that henceforth we ignore this rude man: perhaps when he sees that nobody is rising to his bait, he'll just go away.
Max

Originally Posted by galgos

Gentlemen, fellow forumites:
May I suggest that henceforth we ignore this rude man: perhaps when he sees that nobody is rising to his bait, he'll just go away.
Max

Who is "this rude man"? You're meaning yourself I presume.

There is no bait (I am not the type) - you're just too bête to understand. Simple-minded people always think there must be some trap.

You'll be delighted to learn that I am the greatest angler in the world : mainly pike and perch, cod too. I know a lot on baits...

Interestingly my threads and my posts are always read eagerly by very numerous people (see right column "Views", mostly 1,400-2,000 after a week). It seems that lots of people find my "nonsense" most interesting after all. This is precisely what Luftwaffe-worshipers and nazi-lovers can't stand, hence the permanent calls for censorship and gags on my all too candid mouth. So what people like you really want is to prevent others from reading what I have to say : the facts, the truth, the proofs. May I remember everybody that you can send me private messages in the case of renewed censorship.

[John Beaman]

OK, people. If you do not "act nice" and be civilized, I will shut this thread down. it is serving no purpose...............

Originally Posted by John Beaman

OK, people. If you do not "act nice" and be civilized, I will shut this thread down. it is serving no purpose...............

The purpose is this :

To try to show for some thick-skulled, simple-minded, intolerant fellows that opinions differering from theirs and proven facts opposed to what they have been told for all their life have a right to exist and to be made public - which nobody will be able to prevent eventually for I am working on some books and books have the nasty habit of being here to stay at least for centuries, probably more - without having to expect immediate censorship nor ten-ton bombs. I feel Rob Philips' post, which contains some criticism directed at me, is one of the very best ever seen at TOCH for about 10 years, possibly THE very best one. Read it carefully, please (not diagonally...). I think it's the first time I see his name or in any case take notice of it (what I mean is that I don't know him).

John Beaman, I know you're a good man meaning well but here I feel you're misguided - maybe I'm wrong.

There are other subjects in WW II-history than aircraft serial-numbers, aircrew first names and places of burials etc. These other subjects (theory, strategy, tactics, military leaders, politics, industry, technology and more) inevitably are much more controversial than the difference between Me 109 E-3 and E-4 or some RLM paint colour shade. Precisely, some people here clearly can't stand any discussion at any level which is a little higher than the fin of a Fw 190. It ought to be possible to discuss everything as civilised people, without being called names nor threatened with a big club or a "big stick". You don't like it? That's fully all right for me - don't read it! If you happen to walk past a big bookshop you don't feel like buying and reading all the books there do you. You read what you like.

Last time I mentioned that the Dewoitine D.520 was a superlative fighter, which hardly anybody in the world disputes, this triggered a lot of mockery and "evidence" to the contrary from a so-called "Senior Member" of TOCH, who also was so kind and sent me 3 times insults as 3 private messages (I saved them in my PC pending a decision on legal proceedings). These insults have something to do with some natural opening of the human body. But remember : the "rude man" is me!

If you can't find anything constructive in this thread look again, please.

[John Beaman]

There are other subjects in WW II-history than aircraft serial-numbers, aircrew first names and places of burials etc.
I agree, but the primary purpose of this board is to exchange information of that sort.

These other subjects (theory, strategy, tactics, military leaders, politics, industry, technology and more) inevitably are much more controversial than the difference between Me 109 E-3 and E-4 or some RLM paint colour shade.
Certainly, but on a non-accusatory level. It accomplishes nothing to say someone is stupid or pig-headed simply because you disagree with them, even if they state something incorrect.

Precisely, some people here clearly can't stand any discussion at any level which is a little higher than the fin of a Fw 190. It ought to be possible to discuss everything as civilised people, without being called names nor threatened with a big club or a "big stick". You don't like it? That's fully all right for me - don't read it!
Unless the owner of this board corrects me, I will continue to call people down for personal attacks or name-calling. If you do not like that, stay away from this board. This is your warning.

[Ruy Horta]

John,

This has always been about method, not the message.

The method (what you call accusatory) is what either drives away or infuriates many community members. If you insult and accuse, expect to be insulted and hurt in return. It is a simple tit for tat situation, no innocent parties.

Members are free to question moderator action, but it doesn't help your case if you include insults, threats etc.

As a host I have to take notice of this matter, as a person I don't wish to have anything to do with Mr. Michelet (which is unfortunate because I am interested in the subject matter and general message). He knows why, but he is still free to participate (which must tell you something).

I won't close this thread, because I can be accused of bias, but I see absolutely no use for it.

This is the only comment I make or action I will take in this thread.

[Rob Philips]

Gentlemen,

Some more. The original topic was writing about history, if I'm correct. I believe that this topic would be fully within the scope of this forum. The topic evolved into a discussion, not of method, meaning tools used by historians, but of style. Ruy uses the term "method" in that sense in the post above. Here we enter the field of social intelligence, as opposed to rational intelligence. Freedom of speech, and freedom to differ in opinions, is not a birthright; it exists because of an essential premisse that is hardly ever mentioned, but usually active. The premisse is that we shall not bash in each other's head whilst disagreeing. If I could not trust the other guy to subscribe to that premisse, I would keep other tools at the ready next to the mouth and the pen.

Next to bashing heads comes deliberate insult. In clumsiness we may insult the other, and we apologize when made aware of that. Deliberate insult is another matter. That should simply have no place here, or anywhere else. It is utterly unintelligent, in the social sense of the term. One can be razor sharp, upfront, strong worded, scientifically correct, and what have you, without crossing the line of deliberate insult.

Grozibou claims meaningful content in his posts with reference to high visitor counts. That claim cannot be substantiated, as we do know how many of the visitors seek scandal rather than statement. Scandal sells much better than statement to the general public. The owners & moderators of this forum are not book editors, they have nothing to sell. Still they allowed Grozibou's style up to the warning given above. This can only be understood as the result of a genuine desire to be a forum where opposing opinions can meet. That's grand, deserves appreciation, and should not be misused. Improving a style that does not subscribe to the essential premisse of discours, would be a step towards showing appreciation. That's an advise, not a prescription.

Now the challenge. Could you direct the intellectual energy on the subject of methodology of history writing? Fine with me if limited to writing of WW2 aviation history. I'm not talking about where to find historical data, but about how to process it. Surely there is more to tell than that one needs to have read a lot, and that language skills are important. Surely the discussion could be about methods of first class history writers rather than those who fail to see their data inconsistencies? Surely this could lead to something that has meaning to others? It may even be a first in the field of WW2 aviation history writing. If a clear view on methodology can be achieved, which is unlikely to be easy, then, perhaps, innovation may become possible as the next step. Then the scientist becomes "der wahre Anfänger", the real amateur.

If you take up this challenge, then this is a suggested first item that needs to be investigated: independency. It is generally agreed that science can only function and develop in freedom. If the science is mathematics, and in our free Western societies, that's not too problematic. With the science of history there are, or could be, problems. Many of the professional historians are employed by their governments. Their writings are about actions of the past, including those of their own government. That's a potentially unfree situation, as governments are particular about what they want to hear, and what not. What does this do to scientific activities of government employed historians, and to their freedom of speech? Can we substantiate that these professional historians are in fact unfree in their research? If so, which are the limits, and what cannot be said, or written about?

Regards,

Rob

Originally Posted by John Beaman

There are other subjects in WW II-history than aircraft serial-numbers, aircrew first names and places of burials etc.
I agree, but the primary purpose of this board is to exchange information of that sort.

Grozibou : I was surprised by this statement for I can't remember anything of this kind so I went to the "first" page of TOCH and I could find nothing. If this "primary purpose" is mentioned somewhere please tell me where, post the relevant quotation here. In any case, no matter if it's rivet-counting or top-level strategy or anything in between, I think any subject is allowed and legitimate just as long as people are polite. I don't mind posts by rivet-counters or modellers, with a reservation though : in many cases they don't announce the purpose of their post clearly in the title, so that you read many posts which to you are useless and you waste a lot of time. Luckily modellers have become rare here lately, I suppose because they now have some sites of their own, which is a good thing and I wish them luck and success (I was a modeller myself when I was a boy). Personally I don't care in the least who was the pilot, or the mechanic-air-gunner, of He 111 so and so which crashed at this or that place, but, unlike some people here around, I do not jump at their throat to ridicule and insult them every time they dare post something which I find uninteresting or... because I don't like these persons (I am the victim of such attacks all the time - look again and you'll admit it - of course I use to hit back, I am not a sissy. Provocations?...). Quite on the contrary, they have every right to try to find the information and data they are looking for and I wish them luck too. To be really clear at last, or so I hope : millions of people buy and read newspapers and magazines I wouldn't even look at. So what? They're interested in yachting, cars, motorbikes, fashion, famous movie-stars etc. and I am not, and conversely they don't find airpower exciting in the least. Sorry for making such basic, grass-root-level, obvious statements!

These other subjects (theory, strategy, tactics, military leaders, politics, industry, technology and more) inevitably are much more controversial than the difference between Me 109 E-3 and E-4 or some RLM paint colour shade.

Certainly, but on a non-accusatory level. It accomplishes nothing to say someone is stupid or pig-headed simply because you disagree with them, even if they state something incorrect.

- I couldn't agree more. I am the most democratic person in the world on top of the greatest angler (baits...). Did I do something of this kind? When? References please. Of course I use to write, for example, that so-called "historians" are unserious and incompetent if they write in their books that the Polish and French air forces were annihilated in the first day(s) of the German offensive, or that "French aircraft production was not of the same quality..." (the contrary was true), or that French fighter pilots didn't like to fight and preferred to fly the wrong course (course to the front + 180°). All evidence including the graves prove the contrary. I am going to demolish these scandalous allegations of Polish origin completely, soon. A little patience please. Mr. Franek Grabowski, you may prepare your apologies to French fighter pilots, the bravest in the world (together with all others).

Some wrong statements are not outrageous, only erroneous. Some others, especially on the French, who are permanently targetted by people having their own reasons to do so, ARE totally unacceptable and dishonest and they do have a certain purpose. Remember that Boeing not Dassault sold a new fighter to Poland a few years ago... It was a $ multi-billion-deal. Dassault is a French aircraft maker and it existed from approx. 1914 through 1940 under the name of Marcel Bloch, later Marcel Dassault... 1940 numerous Polish pilots flew a Bloch 151 or 152 fighter. I'd say they were slightly better than their ol' PZLs. This could be the explanation of all the hate SOME people have for everything French...

In any case, trying to destroy the honour of a whole air force (!) is something extremely vile and filthy, disgusting, contemptable*. My dear John, some things cannot be accepted in life, like nazism, neo-nazism and spitting at the graves of French airmen who died 1940 fighting nazism. I'll never change this point of view, if this is what you are hoping for. No way.

*It would be sooo easy, to me, to do the same for 1940 RAF fighter pilots and also for the whole British army! They FLED with their tails between their legs didn't they. Sure, but they, too, were the victims of circumstances and of military operations far beyond their influence and even their understanding. Many died fighting nazi Germany, just like the French and the Poles. All I am asking for is fairness and honesty instead of systematic insults (just have a look at Franek Grabowski's posts : "Too bad the Polish pilots couldn't shoot the French", or something like that... I know you find this statement fully all right for you never warned FG to stop making such statements and you never deleted it. You warn only ME. This is an interesting one-sidedness indeed. Do you realise at all that your behaviour is totally one-sided? No you don't for you feel, "deep inside", that decent people (this means British people) can only despise those small French cheese-eating monkeys and the outrageous Polish accusations of cowardice are OK. Proof of this : you never reacted. WHY? This is a question and I am expecting an answer : thanks in advance.).

[quote]Precisely, some people here clearly can't stand any discussion at any level which is a little higher than the fin of a Fw 190. It ought to be possible to discuss everything as civilised people, without being called names nor threatened with a big club or a "big stick". You don't like it? That's fully all right for me - don't read it!

Unless the owner of this board corrects me, I will continue to call people down for personal attacks or name-calling.

- Fine! Wonderful! AT LAST! Not to soon! Of course this is valid "even" for people insulting ME? I hope you'll really implement this and I expect you to do so. Remember, though, that polite and civilised criticism, in particular of books, is fully legitimate, always was even long before you were borne, and always will be. You really should inform yourself and read the book-reviews of all kinds (about novels too) published in the press for several centuries.

[VoyTech]

Originally Posted by Grozibou

1940 numerous Polish pilots flew a Bloch 151 or 152 fighter. I'd say they were slightly better than their ol' PZLs. This could be the explanation of all the hate SOME people have for everything French...

During 1940-45 many more Polish pilots flew Spitfires and Mustangs, much better than their old PZLs or the French Blochs. According to your logic, this should presumably lead to a lot of hate for everything British or American, right?

You complain about some statements from one Polish member of this forum (why haven't you complained when they were posted?) and this leads you to make general statements about "Polish hate" and "scandalous Polish accusations". You should not be surprised that your posts make some people feel rather uneasy about French people and French subjects in general.