Originally posted by hubsonfire
I don't think, from talking to him, that he's really upset with you, per se. He does have a valid point when he questions the accuracy of many of your claims,
Really? Does he? He listed 4 items in this thread. One was outdated about the G.55, which I have not perpetuated in THIS thread. In THIS thread all of my data has been as accurate as possible, up to and including AGREEING Bodhi when he supposedly countered my point with production numbers of the G.55. If you look you'll see that he simply posted the numbers which I already posted in this thread.
So this should have no bearing in why he's griping at me. He's only repeated numbers we already listed in this thread.Another was irelevant about Ta152C-1s having production lines but never having actually produced any planes. I'm sure in his mind that was a victorious point, but it had zero bearing on the discussion at hand. I said the Ta152C-0 wasn't a production plane, and he said the C-1.... basically wasn't one either.
So this should have no bearing in why he's griping at me. It's a tangent.
It didn't counter or add to the point at hand. It was a nice side note, but in no way was it a debate, argument, or ground-shaking rebuttle.Then there's Ploesti. There were no photos in that whole long debacle of a thread that showed B-24s flying less than 30 feet off the ground. There were some low flying B-24s, and I never disputed that. However, I will not believe (at this point in time) the pilot tales of crashing into hay bales, and flying so low that the top dorsal turret could fire into hay bales as it flew by (a gun position which doesn't depress below 0 degrees). Nor will I believe Soviet accounts that the spitfire and the hurricane were not manuverable aircraft, because it's all subjective.
That is my opinion, and I have said as much, and my opinion on that matter won't change. So... Bodhi holds a grudge and attacks me for an opinion I hold? Is that it? Go back and read the Ploesti thread. I got yelled at because I dared not believe the word of the pilots that flew it. I also don't believe reports that claim 190s could out-turn spitfires with ease. It's a biased claim, which doesn't explain the entire story.
So this should have no bearing in why he's griping at me. If he's calling me a liar and a spreader of falsehoods, he hasn't been able to find one fact. *IF* he hates me because of my opinion, he is biggoted and weak minded. I don't think that's the case. I leave this out of why he's griping at me because it is opinion.If not,
the only other point he's brought up was a VERY obscure one about P-40N production dates. Aside from the date, my post was fairly accurate, and the date was mis-quoted from several popular books. Could be considered a common misconception. I was corrected by Widewing immediately after, and have since not posted that quote again. Where have I been spreading lies? Where have I been conjuring falsehoods? I quoted something going from multiple books, and was corrected. He makes it out to be a much bigger deal than it was.
In fact, he was searching for my name and for "109" strings, trying to find something to hurl at my face about 109s. I've posted quite a bit in my time here about 109s, 190s, and many other aircraft, and even when he was SEARCHING for something to throw in my face, all he could find was an obscure P-40N comment.
So this should have no bearing in why he's griping at me. He had to go and search to find something after-the-fact, and couldn't come up with anything.and the manner in which you defend them when corrected or disputed.
Inaccurate to say that. If I'm corrected by a valid source I will not defend a position proven wrong. However, Bodhi (on this whole G.55 topic) has been hurling insults more than actually trying to prove a point. He didn't provide anything to this thread which wasn't already IN this topic. The way I've defended myself here has been to ask him politely why where and when, and he has replied with more insults.
If he wants to call you a liar, I can't find fault with him. He may lack a little tact in doing so, but you're as guilty as he is. Remember Ploesti?
Yes, I do remember it as a matter of fact. I am not the guilty party here. I was posting constructive, and factually correct information in this thread and in another thread about the G.55. He goes ballistic, on that premise. However, he cannot find any reason when I ask him multiple times.
What can be inferred from that, other than he was attacking me because he felt like it, unprovoked, and that he had no basis for the attack? <-- this description sounds to me like I'm the victim in this one.
Of all of the examples listed above, the only one that might have any "teeth" is ploesti, only fact of the matter is no photos showed the bombers scraping wheat grass and I refuse to believe it happened until I see it. Now if he's griping at me, and starting fights based on this opinion, he can suck a lemon for all I care. If that's not the case, then he has provided NO explanation, and I have repeatedly asked in a polite way why he has done this.
I wanted to get to the bottom of this and put this puppy to bed once and for all, however, he cannot find the bottom. I'm of the opinion there was no "bottom" to this to get to. He can find no reason.
Certainly, if there IS a reason, it has nothing to do with anything in the G.55 threads, and as such Bodhi has started a fight under false pretenses in an otherwise peaceful discussion.
Please re-read this thread, and show me something I've done wrong, other than point out that Bodhi wasn't in posession of all the facts when he started the "vote no" thread --- WHICH, fyi, the Finns did in the "vote no to brewster" thread, and Bodhi didn't start World War 3 in there. He gets corrected in there, and in this "vote no" thread -- but decides to take up a fight in this one.
