Compared to whats being thrown at him he’s said nothing
He’s being ganged up on for no reason really
My issue is this: What if Gaijin comes at you lot with the EXACT same argument word for word do you argue it in the same fashion?
We’ve had these discussions non-stop. Every time a Russian main tries to come in and argue in bad faith, refusing to accept what the documents actually say. Like a form, a document with fields to be filled in, that amends a license, that the NRC itself called Amendment No. 09, is “not an amendment form.” When he initially tried to claim the document only renewed the license, and didn’t change anything. Proven false in every manner, but he’s here to continue the derailing arguments that they have been making over and over again.
7 Likes
That’s irrelevant. You cannot be telling others to take the high road when not taking the high road yourself. If anything it shows a distinct lack of character and renders him a not reliable source based on that alone. People who believe in “rules for thee, but not for me” do not need to be listened to. “Be the bigger person” is exactly what he said. When he meant was “Be the bigger person, unless you’re me then I can retaliate and not be the bigger person” He’s spent the entire discussion nit picking the exact verbiage of government documents that are far from perfect, so it’s perfectly reasonable to address the fact he in unwilling to conform to the standards he is trying to set for others. There is no good faith argument being presented here. Hence why I’m telling him to get offline and encouraging he do what he is actually trying to preach.
1 Like
Sure some of that may be true but he openly expressed he isnt against the change so how could it be in bad faith? If the change is gonna happen it needs to be right and for Gaijin to accept it it has to be perfect, proveable and make sense all Pesto has done is show that there are yet holes in the arguments
(Keeping in mind im technically a US main but I claim not)
The Form 374 that is Amendment No.9 is not saying what people think it is saying. By chance it happens to mention that TACOM has unlimited access to radiological material for Turrets and Hulls of Abrams series tanks.
But the Amendment specifically highlights that TACOM only has the ability to USE and STORE them, and that they’re prohibited from repairing or maintaining these turrets/hulls.
Go back and reread, carefullly, what I wrote. I never said the form didn’t say it changed anything.
Since I was explaining above, I’ll expand here, Amendment No.9 contains a previous amendment that added the language that changed 5 hulls to "as needed’. The amendment you guys need to find is amendment 7 or 8 based on both logic and the documents we have seen so far.
1 Like
If you all want to continue to argue about conducted pm each other. This topic is about the hull armor of the M1 series of tanks.
At this point you are filling the topic with spam. Knock it off.
Its on the topic of the Amendments which pertain to hull information its still on topic
1 Like
I mean, if you actually ignore what the documents do and say. He came in saying the document only renewed the license, didn’t change anything. When he was proven wrong, he started throwing out red herrings, backpedaling, trying to move the goal post, but then he says he agrees with us. Does he? Because he came in not even understanding what the forms did, originally arguing in bad faith.
2 Likes
Did you? Re-read I mean
Gaijin can be very hit or miss about communicating with the community.
Personally, and I’m not trying to add insult to injury, but “Mains” in general, especially “US Mains” here on the English forums are a radiological material themselves. I think gaijin might actually be too cowardly, else lazy, to explain the “why” of each document being rejected.
I think this is mostly laziness, and it has more to do with trying to explain their “creative view” of “competitive balance”. I don’t think they’ve actually thought out exactly what they want to say. That’s why there’s been two blogs about the subject with little constructive changes.
There’s also a boat-load of nuance to understanding machines of war and their actual capabilities, versus what is perceived. That nuance is entirely lost on most people who cling to memetic tokens like “Krupp Steel” or “73 Easting” etc.
1 Like
This should be enough.
1 Like
Yes. She rolls her eyes and moves on to something else. Doesn’t bother either of us.
To make things entirely transparent. I jumped on a small mistake Trackula made because of how rude he was being to others, and how self-confident he was in what he was saying.
I make a self-employed living dealing with the US government and their forms on a daily basis. I may make a mistake here or there, (I’m willing to concede calling it an Amendment Form even though it precisely is a Material License) but I generally don’t miss.
1 Like
When he comes in claiming that the documents only renewed the license, and changed nothing, then tried to say that this document isn’t supportive enough…despite being the AMENDED text of the license of the SAME LICENSE Gaijin uses to justify DU in turrets and NOT hulls, I can say he wasn’t arguing in good faith.
Then when shown how the document changes the license, he keeps trying to select little snippet and claim that only bold text matters, etc… He was proven wrong, then continued to try to change the argument, deflect, throw red herrings.
We can prove the form, called an Amendment by the NRC, change the license in question. His original argument was that the document only renewed the license. Something completely false, before trying to throw all the smoke and recant. I’m tired of these people coming in without even understanding what the documents do and say.
2 Likes
There, Count, read that. No. 9 did not specifically change the language, that was in a prior amendment. There’s no bad faith on my part.
You really don’t read carefully enough. Slow down and analyze, it will help you. You’re sharp as is.
2 Likes
Now lets move on and looks for the rest yeah?
1 Like
The point is that Amendment No. 09 changed SUB-1536 from the last version, the last version being the document that Gaijin cited as their “proof” to justify their decision. The license they decided to cite was the version dated Feb 22 2006. Amendment No. 09 is the document that directly modified that version. There are no missing parts from here to there.
Amendment No. 06 does a good job showing that in the respective fields it once mentioned a strict limit of 5 hulls. Amendment No. 09 removes all mentions of a limit on the amount of hulls, and even authorizes turrets and hulls to use DU “as needed” in the same field/line item. This is it. This the change between the Feb 2006 version of SUB-1536 that Gaijin cites, and Amendment No. 09 is the Aug 2006 version of the text. Any limits on the amount of hulls to be used are gone, and hulls are now authorized to have DU armor in them “as needed.” Like the turrets were listed in Amendment No. 06.
2 Likes
We need to keep our bug reports going.
Heres where i think you were mistaken.
No.9 was AUG 06
The renewal that still included the 5 hulls language was FEB 06. (this is what Gaijin used)
1 Like
Anyone found what variant of abrams had the 5 DU hull’s?
The document Gaijin cited shows 5 M1A1 hulls. Considering that same document cites the FONSI results leading to the decision to go ahead with planned changes to AIM and SEP production, along with this document from 1998 talking about the FONSI and the 1996 armor change, and that they were cutting in protection upgrades into production at Lima, it means AIM Abrams and SEPs should get the hull armor.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-07-14/html/98-18674.htm
5 Likes