Re: [ds] Modern Tanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Atkinson <john.m.atkinson@erols.com>
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk <FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk>
Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ds] Modern Tanks.

>Chris Lowrey wrote:
>
>> Before professing expertise one does not actually have, and telling
another
>
>Who said expertise?  I said I've got a decent source, while I don't
>think he does.

And "decent" source is defined by who?
>
>> person "bullshit", everyone needs to check their own sources and
realize
>> that they are not going to mesh 100%.  Many people here have an
agenda
they
>> are pursuing.  This is fine.  Unfortunately, even "facts" are
controvertible
>> because the fallible perceptions of people are involved.  Are John's
sources
>> absolutely correct?	Are the other person's absolutely correct?  Both
deal
>> with secondary sources, and are therefore suspect.
>
>Are John's sources more reliable?  Well, when the US Army paints a more
>negative picture than Tom Clancy or other civillians, I tend to believe
>US Army.
>
You would believe them in all cases, or only where it supported your
views?

>> Were you there, John, and did you see it?  If not, you cannot
proclaim
your
>
>Nope.	But the team that wrote my source was.	I'm still waiting for
>other source.
>
And this is good.  If no other source is given, it can be forgotten.

>> sources to be absolutely correct in all aspects.  Question your
sources
like
>> you question those of the person you disagree with.	Ten people in
the
same
>> room, witnessing the same crime, will always result in ten different
>> stories.
>
>Not analogous situation.
>
Absolutely analogous.  Ten men in a combat situation, you will get ten
different stories.  This is completely analogous.  Who do you believe
about
Agincourt?