First World War Beyond Living Memory So Let It Rest?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I really am not worried about your inexpert opinion on this topic.

[Jason]

Moving along then.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Buh-bye.

[Jason]

Have to have the last word don't you?

I'm not going anywhere. Despite your extreme hostility I'll continue to post my 'inexpert opinions' if I please. If that offends you, you have the ignore function.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Have to have the last word don't you?

I'm not going anywhere. Despite your extreme hostility I'll continue to post my 'inexpert opinions' if I please. If that offends you, you have the ignore function.

It's more fun forcing you to reply.

[Jason]

You'd think this was A+ and I just made a rape joke.

Yeah, K. 'Zilla. I'm done turning this thread into a stupid slap-fight. If you want to tell me what a 'battle' is and show me why I'm wrong, cool. If you don't care, cool. But I'm done with this childish nonsense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You'd think this was A+ and I just made a rape joke.

Yeah, K. 'Zilla. I'm done turning this thread into a stupid slap-fight. If you want to tell me what a 'battle' is and show me why I'm wrong, cool. If you don't care, cool. But I'm done with this childish nonsense.

Maybe you shouldn't be doing stupid shit out of your depth then.

[Hermit]

Pearl Harbour I'd discount as a battle...

A battle is a battle even when one side is ambushed and suffers a lopsided defeat.

End of that argument.

Tautology is tautologous.

Honestly.. wtf guys?

WTF indeed.

Define 'battle' for me

You're somewhat arbitrarily excluding all but one. Oh, and look! Your implied definition of "battle" does not even appear in this dictionary.

1.a. An encounter between opposing forces: an important battle in the Pacific campaign.
b. Armed fighting; combat: wounded in battle.
2. A match between two combatants: trial by battle.
3.a. A protracted controversy or struggle: won the battle of the budget.
b. An intense competition: a battle of wits.

Most - if not all - others do. Give up. You have lost the war of definitions even before the battle has begun.

[Jason]

Pearl Harbour I'd discount as a battle...

A battle is a battle even when one side is ambushed and suffers a lopsided defeat.

End of that argument.

Tautology is tautologous.

Honestly.. wtf guys?

WTF indeed.

Indeed WTF.

"A battle is a battle even..." is tautologous.

Define 'battle' for me

You're somewhat arbitrarily excluding all but one. Oh, and look! Your implied definition of "battle" does not even appear in this dictionary.

1.a. An encounter between opposing forces: an important battle in the Pacific campaign.
b. Armed fighting; combat: wounded in battle.
2. A match between two combatants: trial by battle.
3.a. A protracted controversy or struggle: won the battle of the budget.
b. An intense competition: a battle of wits.

Most - if not all - others do. Give up. You have lost the war of definitions even before the battle has begun.

I 'implied' no definition. I stated exactly what I meant. In case you missed it, I was making a point of comparing scale between battles of WWI and WWII while musing on the question of why people seem to focus more on WWII than WWI (which was actually related to the original topic of this thread unlike all this stupid bullshit where some 'experts' feel the need to pull out their ePenuses and try to slap someone around).

Do you feel the need to play the "I'm smarter than you" game as well?

[Hermit]

I 'implied' no definition.

Pearl Harbour I'd discount as a battle

Mhh, so on what criterion do you discount Pearl Harbour as a battle? Methinks that would have to imply a definition, and that quote is what I am replying to in my above post.

[Jason]

Are you reading comprehension impaired? Are you attempting to troll me further?

[rasetsu]

Did I offend your sensibilities 'Zilla? I'm sorry.

What I was saying was that relative to the battles of WWI, there were few that could even come close to comparing in WWII. That's where it started. It was about relative scale. I suppose I stepped on your toes by daring to talk relativistically in your area of expertise.

I'll be sure to do you the same courtesy when you step on mine.

What exactly is your area or areas of expertise again?


Your primary failures were:
1) Being wrong about the scale of battles in the Pacific theatre, in general;
2) Being wrong again about the scale of battles in the Pacific theatre, with respect to specific battles;
3) Moving the goalpost from battle being defined by "scale" to battle being defined by something else, roughly equating to relative success by both sides;
4) Continuing to piss and moan despite having lost all hope of anything but a Pyrrhic victory.

Do you actually have an area of competence besides attempting face saving, back pedaling, rear guard actions, and still getting your butt waxed regardless?

[Hermit]

Are you reading comprehension impaired?

Let's see now. I read you saying: "Pearl Harbour I'd discount as a battle." By what definition of "battle, please? Without one such - explicit or implicit - you'd not be able to voice an opinion as to whether the ambush by Japanese military forces on the US military force at Pearl Harbour was a battle, or not a battle.

[Jason]

My area of expertise is 'none of your fucking business'. I'm getting more than a little tired of being trolled and my patience is wearing thin.

1) Compared to what? The battles of WWI?
2) When did I compare the scales of battles of the Pacific to any specific battle?
3) I moved no goalposts. The scale of the engagement was always deciding factor. If the Japanese fielded some 400 aircraft at Pearl Harbour and the Americans got up a half-dozen (sorry not bothering to check the actual number, it was insignificant). The scale of the engagement is such that it was a 'strike' as there was no effective resistance. Thus it is discounted. Want to argue that? Fine, but don't misrepresent my position.
4) Nonsense intended to troll.

... More nonsense intended to troll. I'm not taking the bait.

[rasetsu]

My area of expertise is 'none