[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: revising air war kill tallies
blake,
i'm not sure what i'm doing to make so so angry. there
seems to be a lot of hostility in both your reponses.
maybe you are not angry, but talk to everyone this
way? i love debate, but i'm not sure that i want to
engage you when you seem to express your ideas so
stridently, and yes, self-rightously. anyway, there it
is.
--- rbmooney <rbmooney@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Jose,
> Your 2nd and following paragraphs below are slightly
> bonkers! Actually,
> they're doctrinaire and arbitrary. I once got a
> text book thrown at me in
> grade school for being so subjective during a
> debate! However, you have
> something here that is awesomely generalized!!!
> The following para's
> should have been started with, "In my opinion..." as
> they are your opinions
> though you clearly write them as facts! Tat's
> generally the area of a
> politician. You do, however, seem to have
> difficulty with "begging the
> question" or statements that only produce circular
> arguments. Like: "Did
> you stop beating your wife?" Any answer is wrong to
> that question ,
> according to Chief Justice Byron White of the US
> Supreme Court, except:
> "That question is totally irrelevant to the case at
> hand, therefore, I
> reject it as fallacious posturing since I never beat
> my wife." I know
> you'll do well once you get started on your
> research, Jose. I'm looking and
> waiting for that factual and documented sourcing on
> your "kills" story.
> Indeed, a great story idea. I know you will be sure
> and give attribution.
> Take care.
> Blake
> rbmooney@bellsouth.net
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jose castillo" <felizguajiro@yahoo.com>
> To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
>
>
> > dan-- i would love to communicate with cookie! i
> also
> > intend to educate myself personally on this
> > interesting subject! i'm new to the game, so give
> me
> > some time to get up to speed.
> >
> > as for relying too heavily on any one
> interpretation,
> > it is good advice to stay away from that mindset.
> i
> > don't believe in "silver bullet" histories that
> > explain everything...or even in "correct" answers.
> > history is contested terrain, and i think that is
> > healthy for the discourse.
> >
> > since you ask, here are jose's motives for
> > "revisionism." i have no hubris about us, or
> anyone,
> > "settling" historical questions; all history is
> > provisional. each generation does the best job
> they
> > can with the information available, then passes
> the
> > project on to the next generation. i think you & i
> are
> > reading off the same page regarding this.
> >
> > if we put out revisionist information, we should
> do it
> > in a modest & humble way, like to say, "hey,
> here's
> > another way of looking at it," rather than
> arrogantly
> > saying "look, we got it all figured out."
> > (by the way, is revisionism a dirty word among
> > military historians? i like the idea, as long as
> it is
> > done evenhandedly, and like you say, in a quest
> for
> > knowledge rather than to invoke an agenda...)
> >
> > ok, somebody else's turn...
> >
> > --- Love Shack <Home@DanSources.com> wrote:
> > > Blake ...
> > > You make good points as this NG has had
> extensive
> > > discussion with Harold and Diego
> > > on this topic in the past. They have their
> opinion
> > > and facts others have theirs, most notably
> Cookie.
> > >
> > > Jose needs to do his own research outside of the
> > > three NG references.
> > > He can then come back and discuss the findings.
> > >
> > > If his intention is to be a revisionist instead
> of
> > > putting facts together then he will not learn
> > > anything.
> > > Nothing wrong with revising and updating
> history.
> > > There is if you are defending an ideology.
> > >
> > > Dan Fahey
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: rbmooney
> > > To: KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:24 PM
> > > Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
> > >
> > >
> > > Jose,
> > > First thing that comes to mind is that your
> > > premise is not acceptable: who are these 2
> sources
> > > you refer to and how do they know such accurate
> US
> > > Defense Dept. details; Chinese details; Soviet
> > > Union details? Where is the evidence that
> anything
> > > is different from what the US Defense Dept.
> says?
> > > You offer 2 names, but at Defense they offer
> > > thousands. Rather "begging the question" to
> submit
> > > 2 names of "aces" or researchers who offer
> nothing
> > > by way of US Defense Dept. statistics which base
> > > their stats on the ultimate premise: "we
> maintain
> > > and hold the official records." Prove those
> records
> > > wrong, or some aspect of them wrong, and write
> that
> > > up. Woodward & Bernstein did it with Deep
> Throat--a
> > > false alternative--in their book, but you'll
> need
> > > more than you have: you're appealing to our
> > > ignorance. The conclusion you've reached is
> > > interesting but wrong because the premise is an
> > > "assumed premise." How would anyone accept it?
> > > What you've produced is, I'm afraid, a non
> sequitur:
> > > a conclusion that does not follow from the
> premises.
> > > Statements by "harold fisher" and "diego" are
> > > interesting, in themselves, but hardly the
> > > foundation of any premise as you've derived. We
> > > simply don't know what is completely true.
> > > Layout--side by side--3 columns, and include the
> > > actual stats of kills sourced from the leaders
> of
> > > the separate Defense Departments of China,
> Soviet
> > > Union, and the United States and let us draw our
> own
> > > conclusions. As it stands your premises are
> > > irrelevant to your conclusion. However, I hope
> you
> > > pursue the subject further. It could be an
> > > historical contribution!.
> > >
> > > Blake Mooney
> > > remooney@bellsouth.net
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Love Shack" <Home@DanSources.com>
> > > To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:46 AM
> > > Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
> > >
> > >
> > > > My opinion:
> > > > It seems the US system was fairly accurate.
> > > > Jose:
> > > > My suggestion, identify the reasons each
> kill
> > > was over claimed.
> > > > At the same time some kills may have
> occcured
> > > and not counted.
> > > >
> > > > One of the issues was that I suspect more
> Migs
> > > were
> > > > shot down by Prop planes then recorded. What
> > > were these?
> > > >
> > > > Mustang pilots dogfighting the Migs stated
> they
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree