h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*sighs*

Fact and logic? I know plenty of that stuff Dave. But the question is, do you actually know what you are talking about, or are you the victim of the slack American education system?

I wonder.

Oh, and while you are desperately thinking of ways to backpedal, I'll set something else straight with you. But please don't use it as an excuse to once again avoid the question.

I can unsubscribe to a newspaper and still buy one now and then to laugh at the funnies. Lurkers here on Hootoo are an old tradition, in case you didn't notice, there is a way to subscribe to a thread without bookmarking as well as the ability to look at posts without contributing. I left because I was fed up with the idiocy there, it wasn't good for my blood pressure. That doesn't mean I can't go have a look for a laugh. And I found one with you quoting war statistics!

Oh dear, we may have confused him. He gets all agitated when there is a new page.

Dave, you go back a page and have a nice long look at post 100, OK? I have to be off to work.

"3- What you consider to be my *model* are actually facts, something I have never seen posted by you here"

doin the ole' potomac 2 step, are we?

You have a model. It is a hypothesis. We've agreed on it previously, that it is in fact what you are proposing. Now YOU are the one who's backpedalling, denying its existance. Do you want me to reiterate all those posts? Or just list them? You have yet to admit that your hypothesis is WRONG, or even reasonably discuss it's validty.

I don't know who contributed the most to the war effort. I certainly don't trust your references - I won't even bother to look at them, unless they are referred to me by more reputable sources.

I will admit that yes, the US won the war.

dave

Have fun at work!

The US won WHAT war? WWII?

Hardly.

And I think that the only person that needs to prove their sources is you...

You go Dave!

You have the right to say whatever you want, but it dont mean whatever you want to say is right.

As much as you might like to think it does it does not. You are sounding like Bush and Blair, "There are WMD in Iraq"

no, it's not like WMD in Iraq. It's like "what goes up must come down".

US won WWII. On the same footing as Newton's laws of motion.

dave

Has voyagerII come down yet?

No.

What you are trying to do is prove your self right but you have forgotten to think about possibilities other than the narrow ones which you were holding when you asked the question. When we add REALITY in to the mix you just look like a fool.

So looking at it from a narrow subjective perspective Yes the US did win world war II, but when we add reality into the mix...

What a lovely present to find after battling through the snow storm to get to work.

OK, Dave. You have finally admitted your beliefs. Now prove them.

No, I don't mean with *everybody knows* and *this is important because I say it is*. I mean with facts. Baring facts, at least a quote or two.

*I certainly don't trust your references - I won't even bother to look at them, unless they are referred to me by more reputable sources.*

There's yer problem, Dave. You won't look at the facts I have supplied. No wonder you're confused. That and the fact that your entire argument is based on your belief that the US provided an unmeasurable contribution to the war. So far you have changed the composition of the Allies and the Axis by assigning your version of who is a *superpower*. You have ignored the Chinese and Russian part in the Pacific theatre. You have decided that only the US, UK, Germany, and Japan had any *real* effect on the war. You have *backed up* these suppositions with the battle of Thermopylae. When I have asked for a battle in the Pacific theatre you sited the attack on Pearl Harbour. You have yet to explain how the mere entrance into the war that that event precipitated won the war. Or given me one *lop sided* battle that turned the tide and was the sole reason why you claim that the US won the war.

zoomer

thermopylae, cannae, pearl harbor. Only reason I mentioned was to point out your hypothesis is wrong. You have yet to address this.

dave

You don't *point out* hypotheses are wrong, you prove them wrong. Comparing a bombing with and ancient battle and then declaring they had the same effect on history is not proof, it is a personal supposition.

I have never admitted that my belief is wrong, in fact I have backed it up with fact. You still make suppositions.

HOW was Pearl Harbour so significant? All you have said was that the very act of joining the war was how the US *won* it.

I've decided I like Dave's logic.

Because through it, I can claim that I WON WWII.

After all, my grandfather fought in it.

Because by saying the US won the war, you ignore everyone else contributions.

No one WON the war.

If anyone was a pivotal force in winning the conflict, it was Russia.

Simple as.

Zoomer,

why can't you just address the issue. My posts, 27, 28, and subsequent.

Your hypothesis: importance of contribution to war effort can be calculated statistically.

Examples which disprove: Thermopylae, Cannae, Pearl Harbor.

These examples disprove your hypothesis. There is no basis for discussing this any further until you address this issue.

dave

*Let's compare the battle of thermopylae with any number of battles fought by the romans. The Spartans lost 300 men at thermopylae. That number were lost during a huge number of battles fought during the course of the roman empire. Therefore, the battle of thermopylae was no more important than any of the large number of Roman engagements.

Sorry, that's wrong. You're method of assigning importance failed. Try coming up with another equation, since you're such a math wiz.

dave*



*Let's take specific example: Cannae vs. Thermopylae.

totals killed
Thermopylae Cannae
5-10k 50k

Therefore, the battle of Cannae was 5-10 more important than Thermopylae.

Wrong again!!! what a great method.

dave*

OK, so what you are saying there is that there are battles that are important that were lopsided. Battles that bely statistical analysis. Fine, I have admitted that is the case. Now tell me how:

1. Pearl Harbour is a lopsided *battle* that the US won.

2. How Pearl Harbour won the war.

Sorry, we must have crossed signals awhile back. I never meant that the US won Pearl Harbor, I never said that. I never said it won the war (directly) - I did say it was important. Here is why I mentioned Pearl Harbor. Your post 54:

"You say that some battles were more important than others apart from statistical losses.
Which battles, how and why are they more important, and who agrees with you?"

I cited the ancient battles is response.

Your post 57:
"I acknowledge that there are historically battle that have been won with little loss of manpower that have achieved great things. Now you tell me what battles in WW II won the war."

Here we diverge. Because in 54 we were talking about "importance" and in 57 we switched to "won". I still kept plugging the "importance" thread. I thought you wanted an example, based on post 54, but that had occured during WWII. That is why I cited Pearl Harbor. Obviously Pearl Harbor doesn't fit 57. But it is a WWII example which satisfies post 54.

dave

btw, way back in post 57 I conceded that there are battles that have importance other than statistics:

*I acknowledge that there are historically battles that have been won with little loss of manpower that have achieved great things. Now you tell me what battles in WW II won the war.*

But you still haven't found a way to measure the importance of Pearl Harbour, have you? Other than to say it was important because it brought the US into the war. Well guess what? That isn't a reason the US *won* the war, just WHEN they got involved. How? Why? When? FACTS! Historical data! Others who agree with you! Measurement of ANY kind! Any kind of reason at all would be appreciated. Any basis for your belief other than what your high school teacher told you. Even your old school history book would do, at least they wouldn't make the same outrageous claim that you made. Is that it? Some one told you a long time ago that the US won the war and you didn't bother to see if it was written down somewhere? Oral history?

I'm still waiting.

*I will admit that yes, the US won the war.

dave*

Forgoten already, Dave? This whole thing is supposedly about who won the war.

OK, zoomer. I tried to reason with you in my last post, politely. I've tried to stay on track, explaining why I disagree with your method & conclusion. It appears that you don't want anything to do with that.

I admitted I'm not an expert on WWII history, but I plan on studying it some day. I have no way of measuring how important Pearl Harbor was in WWII. Are you denying that it was important? I know that you're not.

At this point, there is nothing further that we can say to each that will have constructive value. But I'll happily banter unconstructively with you.

dave