CM 2 And Snipers

[Hamsters]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

It is doubtless vain to parcel out the various contributions, but it would go something like this. The artillery park on the eastern bank undoubtedly did more damage than snipers did. The room-to-room fighting of a corps of infantry obviously did more than snipers did. The breakthroughs on the flanks obviously did more than snipers did. The stupidity of the German high command obviously made more of a difference than the snipers did, at least as to the decisive nature of the victory won. The contribution snipers made to the entire thing, therefore, cannot possibly be more than 1/5th, and 1/50th is probably more like it. Somewhere between those two numbers.

Hey guys, what's the problem with this statement? According to Jason's thesis (Arty trumps room to room which trumps breakthroughs which trumps German high vommand incompetance which trumps snipers), snipers couldn't have contributed more than 1/5, so the 1/5 figure is an acceptable way of restating what Jason said with the Arty trumps room to room, et cetera. The 1/50 end of Jason's scale of sniper importance is a suitably vague number and is in itself qualified. Mefinks some people are jumping at shadows.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hamsters:

Hey guys, blah blah frickin blah

If you have something new to bring to this, please feel free to present it. If you are merely here to pick at old wounds, I suggest your time is better spent in the Peng thread. If you didn't understand 4 freakin pages of explanations, why jump in now? You're merely putting the ass in asinine

In Battlefront's Forum, the posters grow

Vexed and annoyed, and rightly so

With high pitched voice, to you we cry

Scarce heard amidst the flames below...

[Hamsters]

And another thing, after much perusal of this freakish monstrosity of a thread, this issue wasn't about historical accuracy at all. The anger showed was on the basis of language, not accuracy.

Jason was being obviously ambiguous about the effect of snipers on the battle, how else can you explain giving an open-ended range for the effect of snipers on a battle?!?! That is ambiguous, it's just ambiguous using numbers. It's the same thing as him saying, 'yada yada yada, snipers are less important than these four things and probably a lot less important than the least of these four.' except he said it with a pair of fractions.

It's ok to use numbers ambiguously, this is not heresy, that's why they invented the '~' symbol. That's what pi is for. Just because someone uses numbers doesn't mean they're suddenly subjected to the standards of a scientific journal or made to reference any statements they've made. Had Jason said, 'Snipers contributed to 1.5% of the casualties in Stalingrad' than demanding his references would be understandable but the man made a statement giving a range between 20% and 2%, weighted toward the 2% and open-ended at the 2% and was referring to an all ready ambiguous 'Snipers in relation to the German defeat at Stalingrad', not casualties or supplies or any other specific facet of the battle.

To iterate, it's perfectly acceptable to use numbers ambiguously and it has, in fact, been perfectly acceptable to use them that way throughout human history. Give me a dozen donut holes, make sure my tires are at 60psi, a pound of roast beef, 6 million Jews, 500,000 gypsies, 6 million Bolsheviks and others, 300,000 men trapped, 5 million rounds expended, 2 gigabyte hard drive, 30 minutes to get to work, 2000 years ago, one small step for man, et cetera ad infinitum.

Next time, before you light someone on fire for not using the language how you want them to, why don't you take a little more time to read what they're saying rather than the symbols they're using to express it.

[This message has been edited by Hamsters (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Hamsters]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

If you have something new to bring to this, please feel free to present it. If you are merely here to pick at old wounds, I suggest your time is better spent in the Peng thread. If you didn't understand 4 freakin pages of explanations, why jump in now? You're merely putting the ass in asinine

That's cute. No really, it is. I saw four pages of groundless arguments and vitriol, where was the explaining?

[JPS]

Jason: Your posts in this forum have been some of the most informative and interesting I've read in a long time. It is really a shame that some people do not seem to understand what they read.

To Michael Dorosh and some others: Lets go through this once again. In the beginning there was a long post which included the following paragraph:

---

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

It is doubtless vain to parcel out the various contributions, but it would go something like this. The artillery park on the eastern bank undoubtedly did more damage than snipers did. The room-to-room fighting of a corps of infantry obviously did more than snipers did. The breakthroughs on the flanks obviously did more than snipers did. The stupidity of the German high command obviously made more of a difference than the snipers did, at least as to the decisive nature of the victory won. The contribution snipers made to the entire thing, therefore, cannot possibly be more than 1/5th, and 1/50th is probably more like it. Somewhere between those two numbers.

---

What is the part you disagree with? The logic has already been reviewed in detail. Please ask if you didn't follow the math. The qualitative judgements of the relative importance of various contributions were based on overall understanding of the historical flow of actions during the period of time under scrutiny. If you object to any of those judgements, please state your case.

If you are unable to present _and defend_ any objections you should apologize Jason for all the heat-without-light you have created.

[Marlow]

Sniff. Sniff. Question - Does a well beaten dead horse smell gamey?

[This message has been edited by Marlow (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Hamsters:

That's cute. No really, it is. I saw four pages of groundless arguments and vitriol, where was the explaining?

Hamsters (if that is your real name

I had a really elaborate reply typed up, but Netscape crapped out on me. Therefore, I'll just summarize my comments for you.

I appreciate your comments, and agree with nearly all of them. For that matter, I agreed with 99% of what Jason discussed early on. However, most of the four pages you referred to had nothing to do with the debate on Jason's numbers, but more to do with his pissy, condescending attitude with everyone.

The topic of discussion has been dead for two days, yet Jason doesn't even realize it. The gyst of the latter posts are attempts to get the discussion back on track, as well as attempts to debate with Jason on the merits of his intelligence (That's a joke, in case you don't get it, Jason). Seriously, I've noticed a pattern lately in many of Jason's posts in other threads:

Jason posts a sound recitation of facts, and somebody questions Jason on a minor point. Instead of rationally debating the point with the dissenter, Jason resorts to (not so) subtle insults and hints at his intellectual superiority. What got me wound up in this thread was that he:

1. Refused to even debate the points in a civil manner (which I can overlook on its own)

2. Childishly, and continuously insulted me, and others WHEN WE TRIED TO HELP HIM OUT. Several people even apologized to him, yet he wasn't mature enough to accept it - his responses were even more offensive.

At this point I realized what I was dealing with and gave up. My attempts to steer things back on track were merely derailed by Jason's continued antics.

An interesting comparison:

I work with some really intelligent people (they're - literally - rocket scientists). I consider some of these guys to be among the top x% (more numbers for you to dispute yet they can carry on a conversation without resorting to antics displayed here when someone disagrees with them.

Jason, I don't wish you any ill will, but you really need to learn some manners when discussing ideas with people. A condescending attitude doesn't take away from their ideas; it takes away from yours.

Hope that clarifies things a little for you, Hamster. I'm embarrassed to have been involved in this discussion, even if I was at the receiving end of the antics. I stayed involved more in the defense of the others here than to continue this trash. Live and learn...next time I'll know to keep my mouth shut when someone has an ego crisis.

Best to ya.

------------------

"As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Marlow:

Sniff. Sniff. Question - Does a well beaten dead horse smell gamey?

[This message has been edited by Marlow (edited 03-23-2001).]

Worse. But it does taste like Chicken.

Mom?

Mom?

Croda was right.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by JPS:

If you are unable to present _and defend_ any objections you should apologize Jason for all the heat-without-light you have created.

Your comments are well taken, JPS, but if you'll read my previous post, you'll see that you've missed the mark regarding the latter half of this thread. No harm done, as it's easy to miss the point of the last two pages if you haven't been really involved with it.

Jason's original posting WAS a good read. In fact, you'll notice that my first few postings didn't even really dispute his findings; I merely described what I thought to be at the root of his dispute with Michael. It's his condescending attitude that's caused such a ruckus.

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-23-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Your comments are well taken, JPS, but if you'll read my previous post, you'll see that you've missed the mark. No harm done, as it's easy to miss the point of the last two pages if you haven't been really involved with it.

Jason's original posting WAS a good read. It's his condescending attitude that's caused such a ruckus.

JPS is right in asking us to raise specific objections or provide evidence - but my argument all along is that Jason provided data for which no evidence will ever come to light. He asked us to accept on faith, and apparently his reputation as a scholar, that his reasoning was sound. We objected.

One can't provide evidence that doesn't exist.

After that it got a little silly.

No offence to Hamsters, either, its hot in my office and we're all weary of this thing but it's like a sore in your mouth - you can't resist running your tongue over it. I do apologize to you and other latecomers; I don't blame you for your curiousity, but I also lack the energy to go over it again.

I hope that is understandable, and acceptable to you.

If you are really convinced this is important to you, contact me off forum. madorosh@home.com

[Wreck]

I saw four pages of groundless arguments and vitriol, where was the

explaining?

Mr Cawley was trying to explain almost every post what he had said, in his original post, directly in answer to a query.

When I first saw his 20% figure, I thought it was ridiculously high; however, after letting it slide, I later read the followup explanation after it was challenged for the wrong reason. As Mr Cawley says, given the other four still unchallenged assertions as to factors that were more important than snipers, it follows mathematically. Most importantly it answers the question that Cawley was responding to.

Mr Cawley's several critics did not grasp his perfectly sound and simple argument about inequalities. Hence tragedy. Both sides deserve blame in using incendiary language and condescension. However, given that Mr Cawley was right and his critics wrong, he should be absolved.

However, that still does not prevent him from looking foolish for arguing at great length over relatively trivial matters. I think perhaps he does not have sufficient faith in the average reader of this board to be able to interpret what is argued. Or perhaps he cares too much for our good opinion.

On the other hand, they are his keystrokes to waste (if that's what it is). More power to him. Someone posted earlier about earning respect; Cawley has mine based on solid analysis and the generousity to write it up at great length (which is not easy) and post it here for us. That's a much bigger contribution to a community than sniping about things which shouldn't be quantified.

[Londoner]

Hamster for god sake, after all the explanations offered....

As Jason points out, "it is doubtless vain..."

SO WHY CONTINUE WITH THE EXERCISE? IT ONLY GIVES US MEANINGLESS CONCLUSIONS BASED ON MEANINGLESS ASSUMPTIONS. Jason, Croda, Hamster, Terrance, why do you persist in ignoring this, when MANY people have spelled it out MANY times in this and the panzerfaust thread? My guess is that Jason is to arrogant to admit/see his failings.

------------------

In military operations timing is everything.

Wellington

1800.

[This message has been edited by Londoner (edited 03-23-2001).]

[JPS]

It's his condescending attitude that's caused such a ruckus.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Londoner:

Jason, Croda, Hamster, Terrance, why do you persist in ignoring this, when MANY people have spelled it out MANY times in this and the panzerfaust thread? My guess is that Jason is to arrogant to admit/see his failings.

Take a look at his machine gun post; Bob Medrow would be proud.

It's unfortunate his ability to crib data from text books has allowed a Cult of Personality to develop, though it will be interesting to see how the drooling followers react should one of them ever be brave enough to question something he says.

[Guest Ace]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

The objections of others will be addressed seperately, in order to keep this post short enough to be read by Mannheim Tanker and Ace.

Can't wait until this thread hits 200 posts so BTS will lock it up...

Jason, I had already admitted that I only read the first two pages (if that) and skimmed the rest. The reason I did that was not that I don't have the capacity to assimilate large amounts of information. On the contrary, I do have the capacity, but lack the desire to wade through the attitude.

I'm sure I speak for almost (lets say less than or equal to 100%, shall we, just for fun) everyone out there when I commend you on your first post. It was a gripping account of what happened in a pivotal point in the war. I enjoyed reading it, and would have no objection to reading other posts like it, regardless of their length.

However, when it becomes increasingly tedious to pick anything useful out of the arguments, the reward and thus the incentive to read on becomes diminished.

Originally posted by me...

I'm joining this discussion late, and it may have been mentioned already (I don't have the stamina to read everything), but I thought I'd comment:

Maybe I should have said desire, rather than stamina...

I now realize that the point I raised had already been discussed. Nevertheless, I don't appreciate the sarcasm that was returned. If my point didn't add anything new to the discussion, then so be it, but it seems that someone appreciated it:

Posted by Mannheim Tanker

Ace's comments summarize beautifully what I was trying to say.

But, of course, you seem to lump both he and I in the same category...

It's been said before (I got at least that much from the last four pages), but I'll say it again: the attitude of the messenger is really detracting from the message. I know you probably don't care, but as someone who's been on both sides of interviewing and hiring processes, impressions are generally made by assessing not what a person says, but how he or she says it. You seem to be quite knowledgable and have the "what" part pretty much down. Now it's time to work on the "how"...

------------------

That 75mm howitzer's AP rounds had about as much chance of penetrating the panther as I have of penetrating Pamela Anderson. - wwb_99

To paraphrase Sir Wamers Kahlenberg & wwb_99:

1 SRSHOASEU would change the whole fate of one section of the city...

[This message has been edited by Ace (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by JPS:

If you are unable to present _and defend_ any objections you should apologize Jason for all the heat-without-light you have created.

This is almost funny. Here is what Jason wrote after I made a perfectly valid, complementary and polite observation about his 1/5-1/50th rationale, which I still believes detracts from his original good write-up:

Originally posted by Jason:

Why do you nimnuts insist on deliberately misinterpreting every number presented to you as though it meant the opposite of what it does? Less than 1/5th does not mean "certainly at least 1/5th". < and > are not the same keys on your keyboard. Go back to grade school and relearn what they mean.

If someone owes apologies here it is Jason for calling other people names, after failing to grasp their argument in the first place.

End of story, and certainly no apologies from me. If Jason insists on calling other people names he will have to live with being roughed a bit himself.

Wie man in den Wald hineinruft, so schallt es heraus.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[JPS]

Germanboy: Ok, I believe you mean the following reply of yours.

What about the possible multitude of other factors? Some that come to mind off the top off my head:

- lack of German air transport

[...]

But I hope you get my point - your selection of five factors is arbitrary. If you include snipers but none of the above, you will need good arguments as to why snipers are more important than any of these. Honestly I doubt they were in some of the cases above. Even if they were more important than any of these, how do you propose to deal with my suggestions in numerical terms?

[Hamsters]

Michael, you alternate between condescending, conciliatory and nasty. To say that I give Jason any more leeway than anyone else is foolish and unjustified. To whit, this should help:

Jason Cawley was idiotic for posting mathematical formula after formula as that only continued to keep the issue in some quasi-grog realm, even though it is obvious that his initial statement merely used numbers in the same way a person would use the term, 'a lot' or 'a little', which I defend and still consider perfectly acceptable.

Jason insulted people who disagreed with him, which cannot be defended.

Jason posted paragraphs and paragraphs when short, pithy posts would ahve been much more readable, understandable and topical.

Yes, I agree that Jason has acted like an egomaniacal jerk at times. I also think that his detractors have acted like the Inquisition and have primarily latched on to his act of using numbers ambiguously and not his demeanor in response. Many posts about Jason's demeanor went along the lines of, 'This guy is acting like a jerk by not admitting he's wrong.' which is a fallacious argument.

Finally, somehow I got branded a Jason Cawley worshipper, which is odd as Andreas himself will attest that my massive ego and foolhardy belief in my own greatness would never allow for me to be anyone's worshipper.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Hamsters:

Finally, somehow I got branded a Jason Cawley worshipper, which is odd as Andreas himself will attest that my massive ego and foolhardy belief in my own greatness would never allow for me to be anyone's worshipper.

LOL! Good line, Hamsters. My old sig just got usurped.

Group Hug everyone, before the padlock slams on.

[Hamsters]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

LOL! Good line, Hamsters. My old sig just got usurped.

Group Hug everyone, before the padlock slams on.

You're still not getting my Bud Light.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Take a look at his machine gun post; Bob Medrow would be proud.

Boy, with that statement, you tapped a DEEP core into my memory cells, Michael.

'Course, in those days, Medrow's SL/ASL data tables were more like eyetest charts instead.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hamsters:

Michael, you alternate between condescending, conciliatory and nasty. To say that I give Jason any more leeway than anyone else is foolish and unjustified. To whit, this should help:

Jason Cawley was idiotic for posting mathematical formula after formula as that only continued to keep the issue in some quasi-grog realm, even though it is obvious that his initial statement merely used numbers in the same way a person would use the term, 'a lot' or 'a little', which I defend and still consider perfectly acceptable.

Jason insulted people who disagreed with him, which cannot be defended.

Jason posted paragraphs and paragraphs when short, pithy posts would ahve been much more readable, understandable and topical.

Yes, I agree that Jason has acted like an egomaniacal jerk at times. I also think that his detractors have acted like the Inquisition and have primarily latched on to his act of using numbers ambiguously and not his demeanor in response. Many posts about Jason's demeanor went along the lines of, 'This guy is acting like a jerk by not admitting he's wrong.' which is a fallacious argument.

Finally, somehow I got branded a Jason Cawley worshipper, which is odd as Andreas himself will attest that my massive ego and foolhardy belief in my own greatness would never allow for me to be anyone's worshipper.

In all sincerity - you can have my Bud Light if you want it.

I regret that you stepped into this so late, Hamsters, and yes, I am a bit schizophrenic. I guess I'm a bit mean spirited at heart - but am working to improve myself. It doesn't always work, as you see here.

I like your self-deprecating comments about your ego; the ability to do that, even when some jerk (me) has just given you the business is an admirable quality. I regret most of all not remembering having read more of your stuff. You've brought some fresh air into a stale room, and from what I see here, I hope we'll be able to discuss better topics than this in the future.

HUGS

Best wishes for a good weekend all - I'm finally leaving work. Thanks to you guys, I had loads to catch up on.

[Guest wwb_99]

[removed as a drunken double post]

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[This message has been edited by wwb_99 (edited 03-24-2001).]

[Guest wwb_99]

Alright, its WWB_99 drunken reply time.

But I have very little to add, aside from the fact that the Dead Horse has been beaten, shot, stabbed and raped before our eyes. Let us have pity for the poor beast.

An no Ace, 1 SRSHOASEU probably did not have any effect on a give section of the city. Because 2 SRSHOASEUs found that 1 SRSHOASEU and shot his cowardly butt.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by JPS:

Germanboy: Ok, I believe you mean the following reply of yours.