| QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Jul 14 2005, 04:23 PM) | Hi Imperialist,
Progress.
So now, rather than me allegedly having a history of offering purported facts without back-up that were later proved to be wrong, we are now reduced to a single example which you "considered a statement in form of a question".
However, you "considered" wrongly. Had I written, "There were no coalition fatalities in the provinces in northern and southern Iraq", you might have had a point.
But I didn't, did I? I wrote a straightforward question that asked why you didn't also list all the provinces in northern and southern Iraq where there had been no coalition casualties that month in order to provide some ballance. You can tell it's a question because it has a "?" at the end of it, in the usual manner.
Your "inference" was also wrong. Had I written, "Why don't you also list northern and southern Iraq, where all the provinces had seen no coalition fatalities", again you might have had a point. But again, I didn't, did I?
I apologise for missing your question intended to clarify my meaning. It was not done deliberately and has had the unintended effect of dropping you in a bit of a hole. However, I would suggest that this is also the result of your own impetuosity in choosing to interpret something you considered ambiguous in a particular way. Nor did you ask the clarification question several times, as you earlier claimed.
My main interest in this forum is Romanian military history. However, where I see unballanced views being advanced on other subjects I feel an obligation to intervene. Your contributions to this thread before I intervened read like a public relations exercise for the Iraqi insurgents. It is simply a list of their attacks. It gives no indication of their losses or that most of Iraq does not support them. I consider this to be deeply misleading. That is why in my very first post I asked you why you did not include reports of insurgent losses or a list of all the northern and southern Iraqi provinces where there were no coalition fatalities that month. You have still not explained why you were only offering a one-sided view of operations in Iraq. Would you care to do so now?
One can "contribute to the accurate representation of facts" in two ways. One can either put up facts oneself or correct errors and omissions. This is your thread and your choice of subject. Therefore I have largely (but not entirely) restricted myself to the latter. This may be irritating for you, but it is entirely legitimate.
This is not just a forum. It is a historical forum on which the accurate representation of facts and ballanced presentation are vital.
Have I mocked you? On occasion, yes. This is largely because of your congenital inability to answer a direct question. It is so predictable that I confess to being amused by it. I probably shouldn't have given in to this temptation, but I am weak.
By the way, the English version of Carcoteala is either "Windbag" or "All mouth and no trousers".
Nope. Ego is not an issue here. As I have said before on at least two occasions, if you can substantiate your accusation that I have a history of advancing purported facts without back-up that were later found to be wrong, then I can accept that, no problem. After all, what choice would I have? However, the fact of the matter is that you have not so far established even one incidence of this, let alone a history. My ego can withstand the shock of being proved wrong (it happens regularly). The question is can your ego admit to an over statement on this occasion?
Yup. You asked a question. However, you did not get a reply on that occasion. Thereafter you were entirely responsible for the course of action you took. A lack of reply doesn't give you freedom to make up your own reply. You chose an interpretation without any prompting from me, and got it wrong.
If you don't object to people questioning you, why do you so resolutely avoid answering my questions? In my last post I offered to answer any remaining questions I had missed, if you would reciprocate. You failed to respond. Would you care to now?
I have come to question rather more than your intent, sources and agenda during this discussion. I have doubts about the ballance of your approach, the accuracy of much of what you assert as fact and, most seriously, your honour and integrity.
Cheers,
Sidney Carcoteala. |
I have answered your question regarding that message. Lack of clarity (space for interpretation), lack of feedback or clarification.
I have already said twice - given your clarification one month later, and your denial of giving that inference to the question, you are free to say that message has lost its relevance in the face of the new "developments". I will not contradict your opinion.
You have the right to do that, though you do not have the right, as I said, to poke my eyes out for a message you have not reacted to at the time, nor for the following month. You have clarified your side now, I have accepted your clarification, what the hell do you want more.
The only conclusion I can think of is that you want to provoke the closing of this thread!!! So I ask you to stop posting huge off-topic messages. Your first post in this thread had nothing constructive in it. You came, you saw, you "civilised". If you really want to civilise the thread, please bring your own well-documented articles, links, comments, stop thrashing other people's activity.
So, the subject is closed for me, no more off-topic messages. If you want to say anything else send PMs, your views have already been recorded for posterity.
p.s. and seeing the large size of the messages you write I hope you'll use the same energy in enriching this thread (which by the way, is not "mine") with lists of insurgent fatalities
edit -- to see for yourself that I posted the link to the question in case several times on the forum, I give you only one example:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=274&st=75
My post dated Jun 18 2005, 05:02 PM on that thread. It gave a link to the thread with the question and my "erroneous" interpretation of your message. You avoided clarifying it then and there, while it was fresh. And I remember posting the same link in another part of the forum to obtain a clarification from you, but I cant find it now.
So I did try to draw your attention to the question/my interpretation, and yet you did not clarify it then. Just for the record. So when you ask me to answer your question I may very well adopt the same attitude and wait for 30 days or so, why should I hurry?
|
Actually, i read in that e-newspapers were 3 teams of 2 soldiers, spotter and "destroyer".
You're not a friend who cares.