All very humorous from one perspective....
but rather down-putting from another perspective on people that don't have 20 years of mathematical engineering and yet still present valid concerns. In light of recent threads and discussions it sounds very much like a frustrated condemnation to anybody bringing up issues with the game.
To be fair to you, many of these issues/concerns are not presented very well, but to be fair to them you can't dismiss them all off-hand. So I'll give an answer to them in the spirit of open discussion and because I think some of them are heavily biased and some are rather myopic.
DISCLAIMER: Yes, I am taking something that was meant with a sense of humor and getting at the topic beneath the humor.
Question: Why are FM skeptics never skeptical of their own skepticism?
Answer: Why are FM defenders so absolute in their certainty that the FM is correct?
Question: Paradox of Relativity: How do FM skeptics know an airplane's FM is wrong compared to other airplanes if they don't know if the FM of other airplanes are right?
Answer: On the one hand I don't think "this plane compared to that" are all that strong due to the subjective nature of most claims (i.e. "The Fw190 out turned the spit!!"), but on the other hand if one takes a comparison to a plane in this game that is shown repeatedly through many references to be very close to the real aircraft in WW2, and then we have another that doesn't behave as it should... say you take a well established P-51D, and then compare a Bf109G-14 to this plane.... Well if in reality the Bf109G14 out climbs it but our in-game model did not (let's just say) then you would have a pretty solid argument suggesting our Bf109G14 isn't correct. You have to be careful, yes, and sometimes these arguments are flimsy, but relatively speaking, not all planes are "coaded" equal. Hitech has stick time in a P-51 and an RV-8, for example. There is a much better chance these 2 craft will match the real thing better than the Bf110C, for example. Well argued, this can start a good discussion/debate based on a reasonable assumption that certain planes ARE "relatively" accurate.
Question: Guilty FM Until Proven Innocent Paradox or Laziness Paradox: Why do FM skeptics assume their FM assertions are right and expect others to prove them wrong when they haven't gone through the trouble of proving their assertions were right to begin with?
Answer: This is a loaded and double-edged question. Being fair to you, some have been presented this way. To dull the accusation in your question: You are loading the entire burden on the one questioning a FM. Within reason some of the burden weighs upon the accuser, but at certain points in civilized discussion the burden is equally distributed on both sides. Given the scarcity of people schooled and "learned" in the physics of aerodynamics, the burden then is upon them to help both sides understand, or to answer questions or possibly clarify part of an issue. If you consider yourself one of the few that know the true answer and don't want that burden, don't participate in the conversation, perhaps? I sense you grow tired of them from tone and responses (and from this thread). If so, simply don't reply to these threads.
Question: Paradox of FM Maid Services: Why do FM skeptics expect others to repair their badly mangled FM arguments & clean up their aero messes for them?
Answer: I don't see a question here, really. Simply a rant. I don't really see this happening much. If there is a badly formed or badly mangled argument most times (that I can think up from memory) it is easily dismissed or pointed the proper path with comments such as "you need to provide a better argument than that" and so forth. Nobody takes a 2-weeker rant about spitfires as an honest FM complaint.
Question: Skeptics Conservation Paradox: Why is it when one FM skeptic disappears, a new FM skeptic takes his place?
Answer: That's more of a skeptical comment than a question. Questioning the how and why of our game will never stop. And if it does, the game will be worse off for it. By no means a democracy, it nonetheless benefits from questioning the science and the methods employed by HTC. One person starts playing and their love for WW2 aviation grows, they learn more, and discuss more. With the high numbers, and the turnover rate, what you decry is simply a natural cycle.
Question: The Competence Paradox: How are FM skeptics competent to comment on HTC's FM competence when they are completely ignorant of their own incompetence?
Answer: How is one able to multiply numbers they haven't memorized before? How do you pronounce a word you've never spoken before and have only read? How do you find directions on a map to a place you've never visited? You preclude all and any human intelect, reasoning, logic, and "real world" experience. For example we've had hunters and shooters ask questions about bullet trajectory and ballistics and convergence and bring up good points based on what they know and see in the real world when they shoot. They were, however, "incompetent" or "ignorant" by your definition on the topics they brought up about how the game is modeled in AH. I read this as you saying you put all your faith in HTC and that any question is a direct affront to your faith, that anybody that questions authority when they are not themselves an equally famed authority is in the wrong. You can see the fallacy of this notion. Lack of articulation does not necessarily denote lack of intelligence.
Question: I can't explain it, therefore it is wrong Paradox: Why is it the reason an FM skeptic gives for something they can't explain ALWAYS explained as "the FM is wrong!"?
Answer: I feel as if that is aimed at me directly from the Ta152 thread and previous Ta152 threads as well. I won't speak for every instance of this type of thread, but I will add a word or two. Sometimes people do post baseless threads like this, and along the lines of the 2-weeker spitfire comments they are corrected or dismissed. However, there is also a big difference between logical well reasoned presentations of problems and a random 2-weeker whine. If somebody says "I was owned, the FM is wrong!" then they have a lot to back up. If, however, somebody says "This happens here, when no other plane in the game does that, it didn't do it before such-and-such a game update, and historically we have documentation that it shouldn't be" then you know what? You can't explain a bug, but you can spot a bug. Even HTC has hunted for bugs for a long time in their own game code. They would have bug reports of certain behaviors and know exactly the end result but not know where or what was causing it. So your problem with this one is your assumption (again) that the FM is always right. Even HTC has to hunt down bugs like any other programmers out there.
Question: The Pilot Skill (or lack thereof) Paradox: Why is it that FM skeptics always blame the FM when they are shot down by an "inferior" airplane?
Answer: Again see comments above. I don't think it happens all that often and usually the 2-weekers are enlightened or ignored.
Question: UFO Paradox: How can an FM skeptic accuse an AH airplane of being a UFO when there is no data on how a UFO flies?
Answer: How can you take a metaphor literally?
Question: FM Skeptic in the Woods Paradox: If an FM Skeptic makes an accusation alone in a forest, was there really an FM accusation?
Answer: If an hypothetical FM is inaccurate but nobody mentions it, no matter how long it lasts without being brought up -- is it still inaccurate?
