ranking Dornier ace

[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.

[Delmenhorst]

Dear Knusel

You are obviously a leading Luftwaffe expert. Why don't you never help people with their questions instead of ONLY coming with questions yourself ?

What research have you done ? What are your main interest ?

[knusel]

My main interest is finding out the top aces of all plane types that have produced aces (all nations and all wars).

[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 ?

[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 Delmenhorst

Dear Knusel

You are obviously a leading Luftwaffe expert. Why don't you never help people with their questions instead of ONLY coming with questions yourself ?

What research have you done ? What are your main interest ?

Google, Weal, Musciano, Toliver & Constable...
...It's probably best that he does ask rather than answers. It would just be better if he listened to what he is told. I happen to know that a true leading Luftwaffe expert has corresponded with him off board and told him the truths I am trying to put across to him.

...And yet he still plays victim

[PMoz99]

Hector, I think you have some serious psychological issues which need to be addressed and treated.
Why do you feel the need to become involved in threads you have admitted you have negative attitudes towards, then bombard the thread with views and data which take it way off the intended course, and then insult other members to boot.
This uncontrollable urge you have to spew forth whatever comes to your mind because you mistakenly believe we want to read it needs to be curbed.
Surely it can't be that hard for you to just stay out of it.
And Nick Beale, perhaps another Super Moderator should become involved here. In my opinion Hector has crossed the line more than once in various threads and you are further encouraging it by your failure to recognise that and act.
I can't believe you want this sort of stuff on this forum. It needs to end.
Peter

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by PMoz99

Hector, I think you have some serious psychological issues which need to be addressed and treated.
Why do you feel the need to become involved in threads you have admitted you have negative attitudes towards, then bombard the thread with views and data which take it way off the intended course, and then insult other members to boot.
This uncontrollable urge you have to spew forth whatever comes to your mind because you mistakenly believe we want to read it needs to be curbed.
Surely it can't be that hard for you to just stay out of it.
And Nick Beale, perhaps another Super Moderator should become involved here. In my opinion Hector has crossed the line more than once in various threads and you are further encouraging it by your failure to recognise that and act.
I can't believe you want this sort of stuff on this forum. It needs to end.
Peter

Peter,
Your posts defending Knusel are the equivalent of somebody who walks into an argument halfway through, picks a side and runs with it.

In his earliest posts, Knusel:
1) Attacked the Moderator and got clever
Quote: "Some of the world's most brilliant researchers... ...and a guy called Nick Beale.

Peter... ...It's less of a miracle that I am still here and more of a mystery that Knusel is after that early post of his. It's less of a mystery why I am critical of Knusel's posts and more of a mystery as to why he continues to fail to take the hints, suggestions and advice he is being given. Seriously, Peter have you not noticed these two points:

1) As mentioned earlier in the thread, the Moderator does not always take my point of view. He NEVER takes Knusel's point of view. I am handing Knusel the gun, you are inserting the bullets, the gun goes off and it's Knusel's foot that gets shot (metaphor for the thread getting closed down...) The Moderator also makes comments that back up what I am saying (put your bloody glasses on, Peter...!)

2) Have you not noticed that others are starting view Knusel's "inquiries" and threads the same way? Questioning their validity, asking why he's all questions and no answers to anyone else...?

The things you seem to "not want to hear"
1) Yourself and Knusel are continuing to quote dubious sources. Wikipedia. Wikibloodypedia, Peter...
2) Knusel's listings are POINTLESS in the light of current research. Current research has it that Barkhorn and even Rall likely shot down more enemy aircraft than Hartmann (and so it likely goes for the best Fw 190 aces, the best Me 110 aces etc etc etc...)
By your argument and Knusel's, we are supposed to gormless gawp at
Hartmann - 352 - wow!
Barkhorn - 301 - gosh!
Rall - 275 - wicked!

...as if it is the cold war. (And because cold-war era sources keep getting quoted over and over and over in these pointless lists, along with John Weal, whom I pointed out was long ago discredited by a far better author, on this very forum)

There are but two members whom I have "insulted" yourself and Knusel.
The reasons should be clear by now. If not, I say again:
This forum is as close to "Peer Review" as what a researcher gets.

Knusel fails the "Peer Review" test - even the moderator seems to strongly agree with that. On what grounds are you defending him? - On the grounds of your own limited knowledge and same poor sources.

Hint: We don't need to hear your opinion of archival sources (German and Russian records being incomplete or riddled with censorship and propaganda) until we see some actual bloody evidence that you have even seen so much as a single TsAMO, NAA or BA-MA folio.

[knusel]

From my experience as a physician (though not psychiatrist) I think Peter is right.