|
Stephen,
I used to think that the old joke about the man who was asked if he could read and answered ‘Yes, but not so’s I can understand it, ‘ was just that - a joke. Unfortunately, I’ve since learnt otherwise and I'm afraid that it appears that you are one of those who can’t seem to understand what you are reading. Firstly, I did not shout at you. It appears that your ignorance of email and web etiquette, matches that of your ignorance of WW1 aviation. Shouting is conveyed by using capitals. Secondly, it is not news to me, as you say, that information on the web is often inaccurate, but why should I, or anyone else, get used to it. I don't think that I threw a tantrum. It's just that I'm one of those strange people who think that if one publishes something it should be as accurate and truthful as one can make it, otherwise it's misleading and adds nothing to historical understanding or criticism. I did not infer- as you say - that you did it purposefully to get others to believe in an untruth, merely that you were perpetuating a misconception, based on the ignorance of the original writer and should know better than to do so. 'Because it was posted doesn't mean all will believe it without question'. I should hope not. But then why post it in the first place.
You say that I am unwilling to rectify the issue. Not true. I have done this in at least two books. I believe that most of the people who post on this forum have read those books and know my position - based on a great deal of research - regarding the cause of the crash. Why should I waste time explaining it again to you. Buy or borrow the books and read them.
No, the original purpose of this thread has not escaped me. But it was you who brought up the subject of McCudden's fatal crash. All I ask is that you gain a little more personal knowlege before you post from inaccurate web sites.
|