EVZ, you're being incredibly moronic. You intentionally miss AKAK's point about the gun being dual purpose. You constantly try and redirect attention away from your own **** ups, like failing to clairfy things, failiure to do any research at all (even a quick trip to wiki), and just failiure in general.
You attempt to get off the hook on technicalities, but do it wrong. Quite often, you actually draw attention to an erroneous comment you made. But whats funny is when you try and slide off the hook when you're not even ON the hook, and end up skewering yourself in the arse with it.
The previous post is a good example of this; AKAK has said nothing about sights thus far, but instead has argued from a point of the FlaK 36 family being multipurpose. Yet like an idiot, you bring up the sights thing again, only drawing attention to the fact that, like an idiot (again), you failed to clarify in your previous post about sights. Instead of saying words to the effect of "the Flak 36 family never had sights for targeting individual aircraft", you simply say "the Flak 36 family had no sights".
Whats more, you try and quote AKAK out of context so as to change the meaning or implication of the quoted text, and simply assume that everyone else is as dumb as you are, and that they won't notice what you did.
Oh, and every FlaK cannon produced
WAS an AAA weapon. The defenition of artillery does not include anything about whether or not it has sights. Also, every artillery piece is a gun, but not all guns are artillery pieces. This is just another example of you screwing up an attempt to escape on a technicality; in this case, you did it backwards.
Skuzzy, Hitech, sorry for anything that crosses the line in there, but that little punk really had it comming. More than that if you ask me, but I'm too tired right now to give you enough evidence to perma-ban me
.
