ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Okay. I'd like to see you defend two elements in this post. In what way are my eyes 'self-serving'
You're chained to your theory about pre-20th Century scenarios. No matter what the true state of affairs may be, your observations will be twisted to fit that theory. It's your standard operating procedure.
Actually, in one of your earlier posts above, I had actually detected a fair assesment. But you then reverted to form.
and how are my assertions 'false'?
Have you provided any basis for them? No. Baseless = false. Now at least Ben supports his assertions with his observations from the AAR. Of course, as I've pointed out tirelessly, his observations have been consistently off.
I asked you specifically "what distortions?" in the last post. All I got was just another declaration that it was full of "gross deviations" without any specifics or evidence of those specifics.
Here's the reality: There isn't a single thing in that AAR that you can point at and say for certain a Napoleonic force couldn't have done it. The distances are too small and the scenario length too short.
The fact of the matter is that you're doing what you typically do when you start losing an argument: begin resorting to insult instead. It's one of your more repulsive traits.
As usual, you're a legend in you're own mind. Yes, I'm defeated. Colin has declared it to be full of "gross deviations". QED.
And, for someone who snipes at everything and everyone in the most disrespectful manner possible, you have to be the thinnest skinned individual I've encountered on the web. You see insults were there are none - and then you go nuts. I gather in the post above you thought I was laughing at Seelow itself, rather than the idea of Seelow being problem free in TOAW. Did you notice I included two of my own scenarios as examples of "not perfect"?
