From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:29:05 -0500
Subject: Gulf War P**sing Match
Civility! Owen is absolutely correct! You do yourself no favours by ranting and swearing at other people because they don't agree with you. Being snarky and sarcastic doesn't help either. Many of us have opinions that disagree - certainly people have taken "exception" to some of my postings. That's good - the point is to come to some kind of collective understanding and/or explore an issue to all our benefit, and by debating ideas we do that. By saying "I'm right, you're wrong" (particularly when, if you read all the postings, Ken certainly has good sources he is referring to) you add nothing to this process. In the end, who cares if 4 M1's or 9 M1's were "destroyed", "taken out", "knocked out" (or whatever term you choose at the moment) in the Gulf. The Iraqis were completely outclassed in every respect. The US forces totally overwhelmed the Iraqis at every point, and the M1 tank did very well, taking very few casualties. It's a good tank. What was the original point? How did this degenerate into childish "my source is better than your source", and what do you hope to achieve by this? > Source? Considering I just posted details of four M1A1(HA)s being > Before professing expertise one does not actually have, and telling > Who said expertise? I said I've got a decent source, while I don't > Are John's sources more reliable? Well, when the US Army paints a more > Were you there, John, and did you see it? If not, you cannot proclaim > Nope. But the team that wrote my source was. I'm still waiting for > sources to be absolutely correct in all aspects. Question your > Not analogous situation. > Like I said, either misinformed or using a really screwy definition of