Rene Fonck? Ha!

Craig,
You act as if I am a babe in the woods. I've got 18 YEARS of military service behind me and am well aware of the things that are done, and procedures that are followed. You, on the other hand, seem bound and determined to prove what cannot be proven i.e. that these courageous men lied to inflate their own scores. THAT IS MERELY DISPARAGEMENT, AND ONLY DONE BY "SKUNKS OF THE LOWEST ORDER!" If you cannot grasp this plain fact, then perhaps it is you that should take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth! In plain English ....Shut up! I researched all of the materials available to myself, and knowing of the vagaries of war, ACCEPT what these men have said. Your "smoking gun" just DOESN'T EXIST! If you must persist in jumping about and making an clown of yourself, join the circus and at LEAST get paid for it.
Regards,
Jim 'ACE'

[wings]

I admit to a bias, a pro-truth bias.

You admit to a pro-German bias.

[Craig]

Jim:

Your assessment of your wit as well as your wits is as inflated as Entente claims. You could have 18 CENTURIES of military service, and the drivel that you "contribute" would undermine every last drop of credibilty that experience implies.

Oh, now its experience in history revisionism that is your holy mission. I knew there was an agenda under the bombast.
Throughout history, "historians" have interpreted and evaluated events without access to the original thinking and decision making of the actual participants. We know that. What the historians on this web site are looking for is well documented proof that the accepted facts are credible or have been purposely or accidentally changed to agree with an agenda. You'll find that most of the historians on this site are willing to weigh any well researched new evidence. However, a single source cannot be considered well researched evidence. If a second, third and fourth source contemporary with the original event agrees in every detail, the evidence would be compelling. The problem we face is that many years after the fact, "experts" have speculated and labeled their speculation "history."
If you review any new evidence with anticipation of proving a personal agenda, you could still arrive at the truth, but the way you get to it won't make you very popular hereabouts.

[Craig]

John:
I have come to expect a more rational aproach from you than that exhibited in your last post. I am getting bored with having to explain repeatedly that:

a) Revising history is not some new-fangled evil perpetuated by some sinister, left-wing multiculturalist cadre of boogie men. It has been done often, and for a long time - perhaps as long as history has been recorded. It is done when evidence, old or new, is weighed or acknowledged and found to contradict the historical “canon”, if you will.

B) Acknowledging such information is not synonymous with pro-German sympathies. But their planes look much, much cooler.

c) While I have no problem with slaughtering sacred cows, that is not my intent, it’s just collateral damage. If a “hero” claims X number of victories, under a flawed system of accounting, and is lauded for this feat, and it is later determined BY MANY WELL-RESPECTED HISTORIANS that so-and-so probably didn’t accomplish nearly as much as he is traditionally given credit for, well, so it goes. If that upsets those who idolize so-and-so, well, again, too-bad-so-sad.

You’ll notice that in the carnage of this protracted discourse that I mention no personal heroes in the Great War. True, most were brave men, but my interest here is in fact, not myth or hero-worship. That is why I get so exercised by those who do. They ignore facts that don’t serve to uphold the reputation of their heroes, and attempt to discredit or even villify those who threaten the holiness of their icons. This is, in my view, childish idolatry, and removes any trace of credibility from their arguments. Yes, I get vitriolic with Jim, but it’s not like he hasn’t asked for it. He gives as good as he gets. Or at least tries. But I digress.

Nor do I care much about cyber-popularity, although my allies may appreciate my efforts. And those who offend me? I relish being unpopular in their view.

Regards of some sort
Craig

Craig,

IF YOU WERE HALF AS GOOD AS YOU CLAIM TO BE, YOU MIGHT (AND THAT'S STRETCHING IT), MIGHT JUST MAKE A HALFWITTED CRETIN! But you go ahead and label me anything you want. I consider the source, and as many others on here would agree, it's a poor source who's family totem is a three toed sloth.
You have no proble shooting sacred cows, good! Then keep your trap shut when some of your's get shot.
Bye for now,
Jim 'ACE'

[Jim]

Jim:

For what seems like decades I have watched in bemusement and horror as you attempt witty repartee and fashion trifling, pathetic attempts at slings and arrows. I wonder: is English your second language?

I'm glad you aren't on my side. You discredit any cause you champion.

All history by its nature is revisionist. As you are writing about the past you can't help but taint it. For instance a translation of a german first hand account is no longer first hand by the very fact that someone else has translated a meaning into it. Sadly all "histical documents" suffer some kind of revision. There are no holy cows only the people who take an idea and proclaim it so, lighten up gentlemen you will never agree so respect one anothers ideas and put them forward for the rest of us rather than launching personnal attacks on each other.

God help my server after this gets out!!!!!

Mark

Excuse me Gentelemen, but don't you believe that René Fonck is a bit lost in this argument ?