Nrshida playing the strawman accusation? He's the one that attributes lies to me. He was one of the three I could count that did so. He intentionally slandered me (more than once) with that pre-specified lie because he didn't like how a discussion was going. So yes, he's quite correct. He can only spread false statements so much before people turn away from him. That's why I don't participate in threads with him much anymore.
Point 1: I haven't 'spread' anything about you, people came to the same conclusion independently that you are biased towards Japanese aircraft. Anybody can observe the pattern, present in your continued posts. No one knows your motivation, not even you I suspect.
Point 2 Your accusation that I have been spreading lies about you is unfounded, incorrect, slanderous, and in fact a personal attack (see Point 3). I defy you to substantiate your claim or retract it and apologise.
Point 3 This is nothing personal whatsoever from my side, this is 'professional', about your appalling historical methodology and lack of objectivity in this area. The only personal part is it boils my piss to see 60 Watters using an internet forum as a platform of academic equivalence. It is not.
Point 4 Your methods are unsound, you have no objectivity and no concept of rigourous academic method and no experience of peer review, you cannot take any criticism of your work without getting offended and making unfounded accusations of personal attack, whilst making passive-aggressive personal attacks of your own. The typical forum-gaming techniques of a crackpot.
Point 5 Your comprehension is woefully inadequate, what you extract from historical data seldom matches groups of other people's conclusions. This has been demonstrated several times. You still cannot see this deficiency yourself.
Point 6 You are incapable of listening to others and accepting what they say with humility or any public acceptance. This stands equally for historical material as well as friendly advice.
Point 7 Most normal people welcome discussion on these subjects, discussion is part of the academic method, discussion is how we discover the truth or in this area a reasonable approximation of that. It doesn't matter, actually, if you make mistakes or erroneous comments, the system is fault tolerant and you must learn to separate yourself from the material to go further. But that part only works if you concede to those more knowledgeable than you, like Wmaker here for instance, or concede your mistakes, instead of loading your whole ego and self-worth behind it.
The fact is Krusty, discussion is impossible with you because of the points listed above. You perpetually state the way it is and then then refuse to listen to others and acknowledge when you are wrong but skulk away only to show up months later asserting the same old claptrap. As a historian you are unreliable and perpetuate more hyperbole than contribute anything useful.
