Naval history buffs to me!

[Berkut]

I'm researching an article on the centenary of the Royal Navy's Submarine Service inspired by this article:


It will take the form of an interactive illustrated timeline and I need to identify the 10-15 most significant or influential (or downright rotten) classes, submarines or operations that would best illustrate the past 100 years of British submarine since 2014.
.....

Brazen, number 11 or 16 on you list should be below the surface of discussions on submarine warfare, there are treacherous hidden depths.

She will succumb to the pressure and include them though - she seems out of her depth, to be honest.

[Brazen]

Brazen, number 11 or 16 on you list should be below the surface of discussions on submarine warfare, there are treacherous hidden depths.

She will succumb to the pressure and include them though - she seems out of her depth, to be honest.

I like submarines. They're long, hard and full of seamen.

[Ed Anger]

Wanna inspect my Long Lance tube?

[CountDeMoney]

I know that you are a lawyer and so statements in Just Plain English confuse you,

[CountDeMoney]

Brilliant, thanks guys, just the sort of "I'm actually interested in this stuff" insight I was hoping for

There was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short story, "The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans", revolving around stolen submarine plans.

I really hate my education.

[Malthus]

I know this is Grumbler argument time ... but how is "The overall impact that the United States Navy's submarine forces had on the outcome of the war in the Pacific is often understated" not contrary to "Maybe even over-played"? 

I know that you are a lawyer and so statements in Just Plain English confuse you, but it is entirely possible that something is "often' understated and, at other times, "maybe even" over-stated. They are not at all mutually exclusive conditions, and so not contrary.

Then why were you arguing with me that it was understated by responding that it was over-played?

It seems to me at least that the one is saying something rather different than the other ... unless there is some sense in which the overall impact can be both "often understated" and "overplayed".

What "it seems to [you]" doesn't constitute evidence about anything but your own ability to understand logic and cases.

Dunno why you are picking this fight, but if you want to continue it, you should probably pick a better horse to ride than that some people might understate the contribution of submarines to something something.

See, this is why debating anything with you is just a total waste of time.

You know alot of stuff and you are smart. But you just go into reflexive opposition mode, in which you can't admit or concede anything.

There was an interesting debate to be had over how the contribution of the US sub force in the Pacific was viewed, and its actual contribution. Pity it won't be had with you, since you evidently know a lot about it. 

[Ed Anger]

I liked playing Silent Service on my C64 and blowing Jap ships to hell. EAT THAT TOJO.

[derspiess]

Yep, I played that on my Atari computer.  For some reason I was always able to find unescorted tankers around Celebes.  Good times.

That said, I yearned for an Atlantic U-boat version.  A few years later, Wolfpack came out for PC & everything was awesome.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I liked playing Silent Service on my C64 and blowing Jap ships to hell. EAT THAT TOJO.

I need to try to dig up the C64 version, because I sunk millions of tons in the NES version.

[grumbler]

Then why were you arguing with me that it was understated by responding that it was over-played?

I wasn't 'arguing" with you.  I was noting that other historians (named, btw, not "some guy on the internet") felt that the issue had been over-played, as well.   I think it is not debatable that something "often" happens if "often" is undefined.  Your assertion that "most authors seem to think it is understated" was so absurd on the face of it (how could you possibly know what "most authors" seem to think on a topic that "most authors" have certainly never mentioned?) that I could ignore it.

See, this is why debating anything with you is just a total waste of time.

You know alot of stuff and you are smart. But you just go into reflexive opposition mode, in which you can't admit or concede anything.

I'm not debating anything with you, other than the fact that something can be over-stated by some people and under-stated by other people.  You insist that this cannot be true, and that statements I see as compatible are, by definition, not compatible (as far as you can see).  You are correct that debating with someone who isn't debating is a waste of time, Don Quixote.

There was an interesting debate to be had over how the contribution of the US sub force in the Pacific was viewed, and its actual contribution. Pity it won't be had with you, since you evidently know a lot about it. 

What is the debate? The contributions of the US submarine service hasn't been a real controversy since Clay Blair wrote Silent Victory in 1975.  Some guy on the internet notwithstanding.  We can't really debate about the topic "as far as you can see" because that standard is purely subjective.

BTW, when tempted to moan about who "can't admit or concede anything," look in the mirror first.  I conceded a point about Twin peaks earlier today, when faced with evidence that my earlier stand was based on incomplete evidence.  Can you point to a concession of wrong you have recently made in an argument?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

That said, I yearned for an Atlantic U-boat version.  A few years later, Wolfpack came out for PC & everything was awesome.

Never played that, but Aces of the Deep was one of my first-ever computer game purchases.

[Malthus]

Then why were you arguing with me that it was understated by responding that it was over-played?

I wasn't 'arguing" with you.  I was noting that other historians (named, btw, not "some guy on the internet") felt that the issue had been over-played, as well.   I think it is not debatable that something "often" happens if "often" is undefined.  Your assertion that "most authors seem to think it is understated" was so absurd on the face of it (how could you possibly know what "most authors" seem to think on a topic that "most authors" have certainly never mentioned?) that I could ignore it.

See, this is why debating anything with you is just a total waste of time.

You know alot of stuff and you are smart. But you just go into reflexive opposition mode, in which you can't admit or concede anything.

I'm not debating anything with you, other than the fact that something can be over-stated by some people and under-stated by other people.  You insist that this cannot be true, and that statements I see as compatible are, by definition, not compatible (as far as you can see).  You are correct that debating with someone who isn't debating is a waste of time, Don Quixote.

There was an interesting debate to be had over how the contribution of the US sub force in the Pacific was viewed, and its actual contribution. Pity it won't be had with you, since you evidently know a lot about it. 

What is the debate? The contributions of the US submarine service hasn't been a real controversy since Clay Blair wrote Silent Victory in 1975.  Some guy on the internet notwithstanding.  We can't really debate about the topic "as far as you can see" because that standard is purely subjective.

BTW, when tempted to moan about who "can't admit or concede anything," look in the mirror first.  I conceded a point about Twin peaks earlier today, when faced with evidence that my earlier stand was based on incomplete evidence.  Can you point to a concession of wrong you have recently made in an argument?

Right. You weren't arguing, there is no debate, and the issue can't be debated, anyway.

And throw in a tu quoque for good measure. It's like icing on the cake!

[CountDeMoney]

I liked playing Silent Service on my C64 and blowing Jap ships to hell. EAT THAT TOJO.

[crazy canuck]

Then why were you arguing with me that it was understated by responding that it was over-played?

I wasn't 'arguing" with you.  I was noting that other historians (named, btw, not "some guy on the internet") felt that the issue had been over-played, as well.   I think it is not debatable that something "often" happens if "often" is undefined.  Your assertion that "most authors seem to think it is understated" was so absurd on the face of it (how could you possibly know what "most authors" seem to think on a topic that "most authors" have certainly never mentioned?) that I could ignore it.

See, this is why debating anything with you is just a total waste of time.

You know alot of stuff and you are smart. But you just go into reflexive opposition mode, in which you can't admit or concede anything.

I'm not debating anything with you, other than the fact that something can be over-stated by some people and under-stated by other people.  You insist that this cannot be true, and that statements I see as compatible are, by definition, not compatible (as far as you can see).  You are correct that debating with someone who isn't debating is a waste of time, Don Quixote.

There was an interesting debate to be had over how the contribution of the US sub force in the Pacific was viewed, and its actual contribution. Pity it won't be had with you, since you evidently know a lot about it. 

What is the debate? The contributions of the US submarine service hasn't been a real controversy since Clay Blair wrote Silent Victory in 1975.  Some guy on the internet notwithstanding.  We can't really debate about the topic "as far as you can see" because that standard is purely subjective.

BTW, when tempted to moan about who "can't admit or concede anything," look in the mirror first.  I conceded a point about Twin peaks earlier today, when faced with evidence that my earlier stand was based on incomplete evidence.  Can you point to a concession of wrong you have recently made in an argument?

Right. You weren't arguing, there is no debate, and the issue can't be debated, anyway.

And throw in a tu quoque for good measure. It's like icing on the cake!

Yep, no need to go down the Grumbler rabbit hole in a perfectly good thread.

When he goes into this mode the explanation Dr. Maturin gives as to why one should never become a teacher comes to mind.  Fans of the series will probably get the reference.  And it is more or less on topic.

[grumbler]

Right. You weren't arguing, there is no debate, and the issue can't be debated, anyway.

Close, but no reading comprehension.  I wasn't arguing, I don't know what the debate is supposed to be, and I don't understand how you could construe your contention about what you "can see" into an invitation to debate.

And throw in a tu quoque for good measure. It's like icing on the cake!

Might want to look up what a tu quoque argument is before you use misuse the term again.