PDA

View Full Version : The 'difficult' Falklands/Malvinas questions thread.



Cuts
01-11-2009, 07:08 PM
At the request of PDF27 I have started a separate thread to enable those questions related to the Falklands/Malvinas that seem to cause particular members anguish to be aired and hopefully answered.

- It may also be used for posters to explain posts they have made to, or about, others members.

- It is hoped that mature discussion here will prevent obfuscation of the questions on the original thread and prevent the same from careering too far from the topic.

- I would ask all posters to keep to the same standards of manners and civility as the rest of the site; this thread is not intended to be a free for all.

- It would be pleasing to imagine that the site's members were adult enough to stand by their posts and defend them, or admit they'd made an error and then continue with the multitude of discussions.


I shall start with the most recent example - from the thread entitled "War crimes in Malvinas ?" - specifically Serial #182, (a reply to Serial #178,) located as the second post here (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4493&page=13):







Yes, for those quarry a twelve is fine, indeed a .177 is 'adequate' for yet smaller game and pests, but should your ultimate end be something larger they are indeed inadequate.
That said, you have exhibited a desire for a larger weapon than you presently possess, for other uses. viz.
Ha, ha, ha, so I didnt own a 12 gauge and a 22 magnum ?

take this , watch and learn.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/show...?t=5358&page=7

And by the way neither of my airguns is .177 the .177 is for wussies like you.

I would put a picture of the Bersa 9mm, but I dont want to scare you much.
And the next time you try to imply that I am a liar you better think twice stupid f**k.
(Expletive edited.)


Once again I thank you for posting to prove my point.





Yes, for those quarry a twelve is fine, indeed a .177 is 'adequate' for yet smaller game and pests, but should your ultimate end be something larger they are indeed inadequate.
That said, you have exhibited a desire for a larger weapon than you presently possess, for other uses. viz.
Ha, ha, ha, so I didnt own a 12 gauge and a 22 magnum ?
Your words, not mine.
Could you be so kind as to point out exactly where I have stated that you are not the owner of a twelve bore shotgun and a .22 mag rimfire please ?





take this , watch and learn.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/show...?t=5358&page=7
While I have never disputed the fact that you do possess at least the two wpns mentioned above, what anyone can learn from the link is that photographs have been posted of somebody holding first a shotgun and then a rimfire rifle, it doesn't actually prove you own them.
It is unimportant whether you own firearms or not.





And by the way neither of my airguns is .177 the .177 is for wussies like you.
You misunderstand when, why and how one would use a .177 air wpn.





I would put a picture of the Bersa 9mm, but I dont want to scare you much.
Why on earth should a picture of a pistol frighten me ?
I have no phobia about photographs, pistols or indeed anything else.
If you think this is normal behaviour, am I to understand there are certain photos that you find frightening ?
It would explain much.



And the next time you try to imply that I am a liar you better think twice stupid f**k.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
:D


So Panzerknacker, here we have a place where you are more than welcome to address the questions raised in the post above, and any others that may crop up.
Alternatively, should you choose not to respond, members can take it that you withdraw your points completely.

The ball is now firmly in your court.

pdf27
01-12-2009, 01:35 AM
Moved to off-topic with redirect left as the relevance to that particular war has long since vanished!

Cuts
01-13-2009, 05:11 AM
Understood PDF, fair one.

I'll give the question a week before we can take it that the remarks have been unequivocally withdrawn and recognised as untrue.

Schuultz
01-14-2009, 07:29 PM
Maybe you should PM Panzerknacker and tell him that you opened this thread?

Cuts
01-18-2009, 11:51 AM
Maybe you should PM Panzerknacker and tell him that you opened this thread?

I'm not sure that's strictly necessary pal, I'm convinced Panzerknacker is intelligent enough to know this is here, after all there's been chat about it on the "Malvinas War Crimes" thread and PDF has been kind enough to leave a link on the forum to enable rapid access.

On the other hand perhaps I should.
It would give the gentleman the opportunity to back up his claims or, by deliberately choosing to ignore the existence of this thread, publicly show that he is wrong in his accusations.

Thanks Schuultz, on reflection it's a very good idea.

Cuts
02-03-2009, 05:16 AM
I'm sorry it's taken me a little time to post here, it's mainly because I've been busy with real life.

However, I would like to say that Panzerknacker has done the decent thing and acted like a man, that he's apologised and admitted that the points he made, (as described in Serial #01 of this thread,) were all incorrect and held no actual basis in any fact, so he therefore withdraws them unconditionally.

I would like to thank him for being honest and 'manning up' (as the current argot has it.)




There, see how this thread can clear the air and cause sweetness and light to abound ?

Man of Stoat
02-04-2009, 08:59 AM
I'm sorry it's taken me a little time to post here, it's mainly because I've been busy with real life.

However, I would like to say that Panzerknacker has done the decent thing and acted like a man, that he's apologised and admitted that the points he made, (as described in Serial #01 of this thread,) were all incorrect and held no actual basis in any fact, so he therefore withdraws them unconditionally.

I would like to thank him for being honest and 'manning up' (as the current argot has it.)




There, see how this thread can clear the air and cause sweetness and light to abound ?

Oh, so he sent you a PM finally did he?

Cuts
02-04-2009, 08:20 PM
I'm sorry it's taken me a little time to post here, it's mainly because I've been busy with real life.

However, I would like to say that Panzerknacker has done the decent thing and acted like a man, that he's apologised and admitted that the points he made, (as described in Serial #01 of this thread,) were all incorrect and held no actual basis in any fact, so he therefore withdraws them unconditionally.

I would like to thank him for being honest and 'manning up' (as the current argot has it.)




There, see how this thread can clear the air and cause sweetness and light to abound ?Oh, so he sent you a PM finally did he?

Well, not as such.
Following Schuultz' jolly good idea to ensure the young man was fully aware of this thread I sent a polite IM to Panzerknacker.
Unfortunately he appears to have decided that running away is the better part of valour.

As I mentioned earlier I would like to say that Panzerknacker has done the decent thing and acted like a man.
Sadly I cannot because he has not behaved like a man.

Again I would like to thank him for being honest but again am hindered as he has not been honest.
A strange attitude from someone who claims to be 'brave.'*

But no matter, as he chose to hide away without attempting to defend or explain his points they can be safely understood as being completely groundless and nothing more than the result of yet another childish fit of hysteria.






* 'Brave' obviously means something very different amongst stupid people than it did amongst the Argentine troops on the Falklands.
It's a shame that some youngsters feel the need to reinterpret perfectly good words to fit in with their own lack of moral fibre.