BlackSheep wrote:
I don't say it can't be changed what has been thought by Phil, I say that to change it you must offer an alternative system, and you don't do it.
Can you not grasp the point? I am not arguing to change the system - you are adding that to the issue (and, repeatedly and inaccurately indicating it is my position). My point is simple, and I restate it here to make it clear:
Fuel is an inadequate and non-historical method for determining the length of tactical engagements by World War I aircraft.
Note that this has nothing to do with changing the game or site. It is a straightforward proposition. It may be discussed, but it comes down to a Yes/No, True/False, Accept/Reject answer.
To remain on-topic and within the intellectual bounds of the discussion the responses should pretty much fall into two categories;
1) I agree, because ...
2) I do not agree, because ...
Notice that this does not include extraneous issues such as changing the game, misrepresentations of my position, World War II aces, or any of the other topic lines you keep draging in. Can we stick to the question, or do you want to meander farther off on your own?
--- Message edited by HeadMMoid |
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
