[Beowolff]

Beowolff -- Read my post again and you might realise that it is correct. Resorting to personal abuse does not advance your argument.

Ice Eagles initial posts speculated that the MIG21 project was dead and subsequent posts included anti-SAS rhetoric. My response, pointing out that the MIG project was still progressing and questioning whether it was right to post anti-SAS rhetoric was therefore entirely on-topic.

For info, I am neither blind nor unable to read.

Ashe

Deutschmark -- Thanks for allowing me to air my comments. Rest assured, if I saw gratuitous anti-AAS rhetoric on SAS then I would comment there in a similar manner, but it is the case that over the last few months I have not seen any.

Ashe

oh I see what you're saying...ie that there was no anti-AAS rhetoric (completely ignoring the anti-FM rhetoric that was/is over at the SAS) so therefore making it sound as if the SAS ...just don't DO those sort of things. lol. :lol:

and that's just another dodge. you see both the AAS and FM work together as hand in glove, so many of the slights which appear to be only directed at FM are also quite literally (and intentionally) 'also' aimed at AAS, since so much of our work is these days entwined. so to slight one, is pretty much slighting 'both' sites at the same time.

as to the 'then I would comment in a similar manner' comment my question there is if that is so, then 'why' (over the last few months) did you not speak out/comment when 'YOU CLEARLY SAW' DM's 3D model (and my importation/classwork and FM work) being literally 'stolen' by the SAS and when DM simply and justifiably asked them to remove it he was viciously attacked, talked down to...then BANNED?

:-?

if 'anything' SHOULD have spurred you into commenting 'in a similar manner' I would have thought 'that' would surely do it. :-?

okay to be fair i'll give you that you 'might' not have agreed with the powers that be over there when that happened (I don't know that but i'm just saying...) but sure as hell 'you KNEW' better than to speak up about it over there. correct?

which makes what you said moot and what DM said quite correct.

and i'm not resorting to personal attack on you or anybody else. you see here, as at FM... speaking the truth is 'not' considered a 'personal' attack. only at the SAS can one tell the utter truth and then be SLAMMED by it under the alias of a 'supposed' personal attack. you see if a person eats rabbit and I 'say' he eats rabbit then no matter how much that person may not LIKE me saying it...it's still the truth. ---not a personal attack. as is supposed over THERE so they can have an excuse to do whatever they like to people they don't like or agree with.

it all boils down to simply that despite the harsh truth...many people will FIND a way to take up for and/or defend people or sites that do bad things regardless of those bad things and regardless of how visible those bad things are. that's unfortunate but it seems to be a human trademark/condition and of course we've seen it all down thru history...most especially the last 'world war.'

I guess it's just 'so much' easier to go with the flow than to 'stand up and be counted' and say..."hey, that's not right!"