Michael Dorosh Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Basically what I'm saying is don't, as Slappy does, automatically discard what someone says, simply because they do not have a degree or a book in hand to back their views. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He doesn't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I was astounded at some of the responses to Kim Beazely's comments on the film he saw, "fake" "impossible", etc. Essentially telling him that he was mistaken in what he saw being enacted on the film. Its no wonder he went ballistic. Its no wonder why I get pissed off IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He went ballistic because he's trolling. And Slapdragon, or myself, never said anyone didn't see the film - we said that the film is on its own merits pretty much irrelevant as "proof" of anything. Combined with other information, data, evidence, or whatever you call it, it might be of some value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: [/qb] A good example is that of one of the first Tiger I's knocked out in Tunisia. It was done with a 6 Pdr firing solid shot. Highly unlikely, impossible, most wargamers would say. Yet it happened. The only reason why we know about it is because it was very well documented. Yet, if no one else had been around to see it, if it had happened on a lonely road in the middle of no where, that gunner would be told by some around here that his experience counted for nothing - purely because it wasn't corroberated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's true. We would not belive the veteren could be correct because, as you point out, other evidence (armor penetration values of the 6lber) make it highly unlikely. A lot of veterens have said alot of things. Sometimes, heck often, those thigns are provably false or mutually contradictory. As historians we have to assume that any single account is incorrect unless we have a strong reason for trusting the source. So, as historians, we would be correct in saying that the veteren is likely wrong when he claims he knocked out a Tiger with a 6lber, if there is no suporting evidence. What the most members of this board are looking for when a new feature or change to the game is proposed is evidence. Not a single piece of evidence from a single source, but multiple pieces from multiple sources. --Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: A good example is that of one of the first Tiger I's knocked out in Tunisia. It was done with a 6 Pdr firing solid shot. Highly unlikely, impossible, most wargamers would say. Yet it happened. The only reason why we know about it is because it was very well documented. Yet, if no one else had been around to see it, if it had happened on a lonely road in the middle of no where, that gunner would be told by some around here that his experience counted for nothing - purely because it wasn't corroberated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The proper historical review doesn't just leave it at "it happened." It further pursues to determine how it happened. Front shot or flank shot? At what range? Special ammo? Terrain & environmental conditions, if these are relevant? If a frontal armor kill, was it a "shot trap"? (CM does allow that in its armor modeling of specific vehicles too, like the Panther A or early G.) An informed historical wargamer doesn't rule out that an "ubervehicle" can't be killed. CM kills of Tigers with 6-lbr guns can certainly happen with the right combination of prior conditions. I once played a CM PBEM where I had twelve Shermans/M10 vehicles total, as part of a US force, face against ten King Tigers. It was the first time my opponent & I played this scenario too. He conceded in 15 turns when he lost six KT's to three of my Shermans. It happened as "fact" in a CM game. Does that mean then that US Shermans should usually expect a 2:1 kill ratio against KT's in CM games? No way. I only pulled it off by a very specific usage of terrain & tactics. It isn't enough to record "it happened." Further seek to correlate why it happened, and what were the causative factors. Only then can a historical trend be understood or predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 That was not the impression I percieved. Now who said the film was like a "fake"? Who said that Fascines could not be used the way he saw them used? Who said that training films were propaganda? I'd suggest you go back and reread that thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I'd suggest you go back and reread that thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While I would suggest that you just read what you like, and not what other people wrote. How about you go back and re-read the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 OH MY GOD...!! 304 POSTS WHAT A WASTE!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: [/qb]Oh, excuse me but I am about to say some very rude words, ****ing bull****, Slappy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again Brian, what people are trying to say to you is that your methods are wrong, not the existence of a single photograph or a single film taken completely out of context. And Kim Beazley / Mulga Hill / whoever should not even be a part of our conversations since he was banned. Edited: Opps, 306. Perhaps we should make Matt's life easier and back out of this thread now. [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: OH MY GOD...!! 304 POSTS WHAT A WASTE!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So don't read it then. Let's act our age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 In retrospect, though, this topic has really taken an epic trip through the light fantastic in broaching multiple subjects. From fascines to bridge-building to fire discipline/ambushes, and then to valid historical recounting. With a light sprinkle of SOP and Bren tripod. The latest subject, objective historical analysis, is one that always attracts me like a moth to fire. This thread's due any moment to implode, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: So don't read it then. Let's act our age.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes "let's". Words to live by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Basically what I'm saying is don't, as Slappy does, automatically discard what someone says, simply because they do not have a degree or a book in hand to back their views.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You and the infamous "Bill" repeatedly and continually accuse Slappy of this, and I assume that it is what you believe. This I find most peculiar, since on the basis of what he has actually posted, this is not in fact his position. This is a fact that he has patiently repeated in various forms several times. Each time he exhibits patience, he is further accused of "being condescending". This puts him in a no-win position where no matter what he offers he is simply wrong because he is "Mr. Slapdragon". Slappy does, like myself and others, make mistakes and deserves to be called on them when he does. But I find the kind and level of criticism that has been directed against him in this and other threads recently goes completely beyond reason and civil discourse. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: You and the infamous "Bill" repeatedly and continually accuse Slappy of this, and I assume that it is what you believe. This I find most peculiar, since on the basis of what he has actually posted, this is not in fact his position. This is a fact that he has patiently repeated in various forms several times. Each time he exhibits patience, he is further accused of "being condescending". This puts him in a no-win position where no matter what he offers he is simply wrong because he is "Mr. Slapdragon". Slappy does, like myself and others, make mistakes and deserves to be called on them when he does. But I find the kind and level of criticism that has been directed against him in this and other threads recently goes completely beyond reason and civil discourse. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Truer words have never been spoken, Michael. Thanks for stating it so well; I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 May I suggest that Spook or Micheal start a new thread on historic methods and that we leave this thread to the board. It would keep Matt happy and the board running smoothly. The cursing and the return of the banned "bill" (mulga hill / Kim Beazely) killed much of this thread, but another thread specifically on history may be a little more tame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 I also find it strange that again and again we find Slapdragon on the defendant's table when it is obviously a discriminate group of cognitively challenged antipodes from the southern hemisphere who are either banned, use multiple personalities, use fake identities and/or generally troll around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: You and the infamous "Bill" repeatedly and continually accuse Slappy of this, and I assume that it is what you believe. This I find most peculiar, since on the basis of what he has actually posted, this is not in fact his position. This is a fact that he has patiently repeated in various forms several times. Each time he exhibits patience, he is further accused of "being condescending". This puts him in a no-win position where no matter what he offers he is simply wrong because he is "Mr. Slapdragon". Slappy does, like myself and others, make mistakes and deserves to be called on them when he does. But I find the kind and level of criticism that has been directed against him in this and other threads recently goes completely beyond reason and civil discourse. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well said Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 The only good thing is the "antipodes group" is not much for high quality discussion, so it always turns into a case of a flame session, but at least the insults are not very good: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: [/qb]Oh, excuse me but I am about to say some very rude words, ****ing bull****, Slappy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now this is an insult of major proportions: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrPeng: [sickening kiddie show host voice] Hi Everybody! Who Wants to play a game?! THATS GRRREEEAT! OK the game we are about to play is called "Guess who I am!" I'm going to pretend to be someone and you all get to guess who I am. Ready? GREAT! OK, Here we go! [/sickening kiddie show host voice] [sickening kiddie show host voice pretending to be an outre boarder voice masquerading as a 'pooler voice] Hey, kids! I don't like any of you because I am so very much smarter and well read. I am a teacher because I am so smart. In fact I'm so much smarter an well read that I have lost all sense of proportion regarding just how important the things I know are in the grand scheme of things. The other really cool thing about me is that I like to pretend to be a sherrif. I get a gun and a badge and a big stick that I can beat the crap out of drunk people with in the back of a car. It's really a cool thing to do. I like to think that traffic tickets are events suitable for a warning shot through the liver. Being a cop is cool. Being a cop who is a teacher and a body builder is even cooler, but I like to bash gays the most. I think my perfect night would be to kick the crap out of a drunk gay guy while politely lecturing him about military history. That would be cool, and you would all be jealous of how cool I am because I know so much and have lights on top of my car and I am so cool. [/sickening kiddie show host voice pretending to be an outre boarder voice masquerading as a 'pooler voice] [sickening kiddie show host voice] OK KIDS! ARE YOU READY TO GUESS??!! [/sickening kiddie show host voice] [Peng voice] Uh, is it Dorosh? [/Peng voice] [sickening kiddie show host voice] NOPE! [/sickening kiddie show host voice] [Peng voice] Uh, huh huh huh ...I give up. [/Peng voice] [sickening kiddie show host voice] You do! then YOU LOSE! and I'm not going to tell you who it is. [/sickening kiddie show host voice]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suspect that while humorless, they believe in what they are saying, they just do not have the training to move past the whole "The Customer Always Gets What He Wants" crap and into real historical and simulation training on which to base a debate. Notice the people who gave so far responded against them are either scientists, have scientific training, or are professional historians, or in a related field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ales Dvorak Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 Slapy, where is yours 1.9m Please, no flames BTW, how much is your weight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ales Dvorak: Slapy, where is yours 1.9m Please, no flames BTW, how much is your weight? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bout 90, depending on if I am running or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ales Dvorak Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: depending on if I am running or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> + - kg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ales Dvorak: + - kg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, + or -, because I gain when I run sometimes. Note also this is a guess in metric made by my wife, my physical was in English units. [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ales Dvorak Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: sometimes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 2.2 pounds per kilo, Slapdragon. Canadians are so smart they can use both systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: 2.2 pounds per kilo, Slapdragon. Canadians are so smart they can use both systems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is what I thought. 85-95 then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: 2.2 pounds per kilo, Slapdragon. Canadians are so smart they can use both systems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or so dumb that they can't pick one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ales Dvorak Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: That is what I thought. 85-95 then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's more 198 kg : then : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts