Is there a Federal law that every sentence needs maximal snark and hyperbole? (Re: greenslime1951)

No need to apologize. Subtlety was my intent. And I don’t disagree with what you posted.

Not only did you entertain with this little metaphoric journey, not only did you give everyone who read it a mini-adventure for their mind… but you also gave me a purpose in life that should keep me busy for another forty years.

(The concept that I might make it to the pearly gates to find the savior and his favorite drinking buddies/archangels/disciples cracking up at what we post here makes my time here all the more worth it.)

Indictment pending.

How do you post in falsetto?

Two toothpicks, nerves of steel.

Did you accidentally have the SnackPit open in another tab? No biggie, it happens to all of us sometimes.

Which, by your own logic, means you can’t have a problem with it. Sometimes I wonder how people this stupid ever learned to walk without tripping over their untied shoes.

Oh, and extra bonus: This is the Pit, devoted to insulting people. Thus, by your own logic, you can’t complain about what I just said either.

I have some respect for you, so I suggest you go back and actually read what he actually wrote, and realize it isn’t what you seem to think he said.

A humorless troll too, and he must have lived not under a bridge but in a cave for missing the Olympics. :slight_smile:

I dunno, I think the denizens of these board (myself included, at times) do derive significant entertainment from pig wrassling. There’s that joke the punchline of which is where the bear says “…you’re not here for the hunting, are you?”

Back on the Elections forum greenslime1951 is getting more slimier, even the management is not amused there, and in GD he showed that he has no clue on how mortgages work or the history of the bubble burst and the current recession. I wonder if he will make it to next week.

It’s not just current events he’s ignorant of. In a thread about WWII, slime made the claim that the Soviet Union had “almost no tanks”.

Not the best example, perhaps. Prior to and during Barbarossa, the Soviets had lots of crap tanks, but very few T-34s and KV-1s that could compete with German armor.

Hijack over, carry on.

Oh neat! It’s rare to get such a perfect specimen in the wild. I’m talking about the sanctimony loop of course. Dare to criticize anyone for being sanctimonious and you’ll only end up looking like an even bigger sanctimonious twat. Even posting this is dangerous. Better quit while I’m ahead.

No, we dug up the figures. The Soviets had a superiority in both quantity and quality at every point during the war.

OK, but meh.

During Barbarossa (June, 1941), the most numerous German tank was the Panzer MkIII, while Soviet armor was mostly obsolete T-26s and the crappy BT series. T-34s and KVs accounted for less than 10 percent of the total Soviet armor force. MkIIIs racked up average kill ratios of 6:1 against Soviet armor during Barbarossa. Radios and better leadership account for some of this imbalance, surely, but it also seems true that the Germans enjoyed a pure quality advantage in most Barbarossa armor encounters (according to these figures anyway - I’m basing this on Wiki and some tank sites, not on any in-depth history of Barbarossa).

Granted, this doesn’t contradict your point as written, or defend slime’s statement, since the Soviets could still have had more quality tanks theater-wide than the Germans.

Oh fer cryin’ out loud. I know nothing about this subject but at least I can read.

Slime’s statement was flat wrong. It was a quantitative statement: “almost no tanks”. Unless you are going to seriously attempt to contend that the tanks the USSR had were of so low quality they didn’t actually count as tanks (and frankly even your last post makes it clear that they weren’t that bad) you have no point.

Get over it and move on.

The problem was that the percentages don’t reflect the real balance of power. The German percentage of MkIII’s in their tank force in 1941 may have been higher than the Soviet percentage of T-34’s. But that’s only a reflection of the overall Soviet superiority in numbers. The Germans had about 1000 MkIII’s in a total force of about 4000 tanks. The Soviets had over 1500 T-34’s in a total force of about 16000 tanks. So while the German tank force was 25% MkIII’s and the Soviet tank force was only 10% T-34’s, there were actually more T-34’s than MkIII’s. And this doesn’t reflect the overall 4:1 superiority in Soviet tank numbers.

That said, I don’t think anyone would dispute that the Germans used their tanks a lot better than the Soviets used theirs. But it was certainly never an issue that the Soviets suffered from a lack of tanks.

I wasn’t trying to defend slime’s statement, just clarify my own (i.e., that the Germans generally had a quality advantage in most Barbarossa armor encounters). But since my own research confirms Nemo’s more measured response, I must admit the available facts don’t even support my lesser statement. Objection withdrawn.