Operation Sea Lion (1974 Sandhurst Wargame)

[Lucarionape]

His suggestions were bad, but I'm sure he believed them.

And he put as much work into it as you did with either the AANW thread, or your reply to the Overlord-in-43.

I agree in part with Ian, but he did over step the bounds of reality with his ability to counter factual information presented to him by trying to twist or ignore what we said.
Edit:
Note I have never read your timeline so have no idea what he means, just that I think that Glenn really believed in what he was saying, to the point where he’d turn a blind eye to all he couldn’t rationalise.

 

[Ian_W]

I agree in part with Ian, but he did over step the bounds of reality with his ability to counter factual information presented to him by trying to twist or ignore what we said.

His idea that an early airborne assault could have taken the Isle of Wight is correct - heck, the Allied high command was worried about paratroopers into England into 1943.

Where he stuffed up was the ability of supporting this assault, and therefore preventing a British counter-attack.

That said *shrug* I've seen worse on this board. Calbear's AANW, for example, completely ignore that more time would have done to the Atlantic Wall.

 

[Fred the Great]

And he put as much work into it ...

What work? I've never seem him demonstrate any research worthy of the word. On that basis, a rather rude comment towards CalBear, who wrote a rather long and detailed timeline.

 

[CalBear]

His suggestions were bad, but I'm sure he believed them.

And he put as much work into it as you did with either the AANW thread, or your reply to the Overlord-in-43.

While this should probably be in the HoI, I'll address it here. The problem, and it is a long term issue, one I probably should have quashed years ago, is that he argues in bad faith. He move goalposts up and down the field, asks for absolutely ludicrous amounts of data or information, and then ignores it if it doesn't fit into his world view, all to simply wear out others in the discussion. Worse, he ruins threads because everyone simply gets into endless debates with him, despite the fact that anyone who pays the slightest attention can she is simply screwing with everyone. I've long since lost count of the number of reports he's generated with literal years worth of dancing right up to the knife's edge in what sure looks like efforts to draw other off sides.

At some point it had to stop. This is the point. I hope he takes this to heart, he could be a very valuable member if he changes his style. Right now he's the cat who spends all afternoon sitting on the other side of the gate simply to drive the dogs nuts. That is one plow that won't scour any more.

 

[Zheng He]

Right now he's the cat who spends all afternoon sitting on the other side of the gate simply to drive the dogs nuts.

I have two beagles who resemble that remark...

 

[CalBear]

His idea that an early airborne assault could have taken the Isle of Wight is correct - heck, the Allied high command was worried about paratroopers into England into 1943.

Where he stuffed up was the ability of supporting this assault, and therefore preventing a British counter-attack.

That said *shrug* I've seen worse on this board. Calbear's AANW, for example, completely ignore that more time would have done to the Atlantic Wall.

Significant difference is that AANW was never designed or intended to be a serious factual discussion. It was a purely speculative T/L, yes one with a lot of research and solid work in it, but speculative nonetheless regarding a very different ATL.

As far as AANW, I spent considerable time discussing reasons for each question regarding issues brought up (including several PAGES discussing why the British hadn't upgunned a tank earlier than I had them doing it) but I never claimed that the results were inevitable outside of author fiat. Indeed, I flat out stated early on in the T/L that I had to use a very unlikely POD or two in order to set up the rest of the ATL.

 

[Ian_W]

On that basis, a rather rude comment towards CalBear, who wrote a rather long and detailed timeline.

I've read enough stuff from Gudestein and Glenn to determine the difference between long, detailed and good, thank you.

And for the record, I'm not being rude to CalBear. I'm being rude about what he wrote.

 

[Ian_W]

Significant difference is that AANW was never designed or intended to be a serious factual discussion. It was a purely speculative T/L, yes one with a lot of research and solid work in it, but speculative nonetheless regarding a very different ATL.

As far as AANW, I spent considerable time discussing reasons for each question regarding issues brought up (including several PAGES discussing why the British hadn't upgunned a tank earlier than I had them doing it) but I never claimed that the results were inevitable outside of author fiat. Indeed, I flat out stated early on in the T/L that I had to use a very unlikely POD or two in order to set up the rest of the ATL.

Horseshit.

You came in with a pre-determined opinion and went 'No. I'm right' a lot.

 

[Fred the Great]

I've read enough stuff from Gudestein and Glenn to determine the difference between long, detailed and good, thank you.

​

​

So, out of curiosity, can you point me to the posts by Glenn that were the product of some amount of work?

I get you don't like the idea of people piling on, so to speak, but let's not pretend this person has actually invested much effort to back up his unconventional thinking.

And for the record, I'm not being rude to CalBear. I'm being rude about what he wrote.

​

Not buying that distinction. CalBear's timeline was entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Fred the Great]

Horseshit.

You came in with a pre-determined opinion and went 'No. I'm right' a lot.

Yeah, not being rude at all here.

 

[Ian_W]

So, out of curiosity, can you point me to the posts by Glenn that were the product of some amount of work?
.

Bluntly, you're doing what Calbear banned Glenn for - asking other people to do the work.

 

[Fred the Great]

Bluntly, you're doing what Calbear banned Glenn for - asking other people to do the work.

I thought it was a kick, but anyway. No, this is rather different. You've suggested he put work into his postings. I am genuinely curious as to why you hold that view because it is contrary to what I've read in this thread.

 

[CalBear]

Horseshit.

You came in with a pre-determined opinion and went 'No. I'm right' a lot.

Of course I did. That is why it was an ATL meant to discuss how things would have happened in Europe if the Reich won. It then wound up being a full out fictional history of a war that never happened.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

@CalBear

Now that this debate about the Isle of Wright is over, can you remove the poll in case something new comes up?

 

[CalBear]

Deleted per request.

 

[Paradox-less]

Bluntly, you're doing what Calbear banned Glenn for - asking other people to do the work.

You're getting it mixed up. You're the one who claimed Glenn actually put in the effort instead of switching the goalposts, cherry picking and flat out ignoring when people showed him he was wrong. So you should show why you disagree.

Glenn asked people to do the research for him, when it was obvious that he wasn't going to pay attention and only pick out the parts that fit his theory. He was the one claiming that Wightlion would work, so obviously he was the one who had to provide the evidence as to why Wightlion would work.

 

[DaveBC]

That's it. Everybody out of the pool

I've let this slide as far as its going to get. I had actually hoped you would get tired of throlling the entire thread over and over (and had also hoped that folks would clue the Hell in that they were getting Rick-rolled so this crap wouldn't happen any longer). Neither happened.

Fine. I'll stop it.

Kicked for a week.

You WILL NOT troll like this again on this Board. EVER. Take it too the Bank.

Aw, but mom... I guess this means people aren't going to be allowed to research my very reasonable "hop the Solent" and "zerg rush the Thames" strategies for me either but they are war winners I assure you.

While this should probably be in the HoI, I'll address it here. The problem, and it is a long term issue, one I probably should have quashed years ago, is that he argues in bad faith. He move goalposts up and down the field, asks for absolutely ludicrous amounts of data or information, and then ignores it if it doesn't fit into his world view, all to simply wear out others in the discussion. Worse, he ruins threads because everyone simply gets into endless debates with him, despite the fact that anyone who pays the slightest attention can she is simply screwing with everyone. I've long since lost count of the number of reports he's generated with literal years worth of dancing right up to the knife's edge in what sure looks like efforts to draw other off sides.

At some point it had to stop. This is the point. I hope he takes this to heart, he could be a very valuable member if he changes his style. Right now he's the cat who spends all afternoon sitting on the other side of the gate simply to drive the dogs nuts. That is one plow that won't scour any more.

Well said. Although I try to learn a couple new and actually informative things every time a Sea Lion thread comes up, as a community we have invested a tremendous amount of energy over the years flogging the deadest of dead horses.

 

[PhilKearny]

I love this thread.

I just wish that folks tearing apart and ridiculing Glenn239’s absurdities would expend the same effort in debunking some of the equally absurd (or, sometimes even more absurd) “Save the Empire/The UK does better” themed threads that inundate the board, drowning out much of the more interesting content.

 

[CalBear]

I love this thread.

I just wish that folks tearing apart and ridiculing Glenn239’s absurdities would expend the same effort in debunking some of the equally absurd (or, sometimes even more absurd) “Save the Empire/The UK does better” themed threads that inundate the board, drowning out much of the more interesting content.

Something I need to perhaps make more clear. (apologies to the OP for dragging this out)

If this had been Glenn's ATL, as is the case with most "Empire survives" T/L I would have simply told folks who were complaining to simply stop reading, at least unless/until it totally jumped the shark (as has happened a few times in threads like you are describing) and then asked the OP to A) move back to "plausible" or B) if they would like the thread moved to Writers (where frankly plenty of these T/L should go) or, if it has really jumped an entire inlet full of sharks C) ASB. Only after that, assuming the OP doesn't chose any of the three option's would I move the thread.

Problem here is that THIS WAS NOT GLENN'S THREAD. He, as has happened more than once with simple WI Sea Lion questions, managed to hijack it and turn it into a debate about the entire Sea Lion scenario and then argued in bad faith about it.

Further issues with the specific action should be taken to the HoI.

Again, @Not James Stockdale, sorry for the interruption.

 

[Zheng He]

Of course I did. That is why it was an ATL meant to discuss how things would have happened in Europe if the Reich won. It then wound up being a full out fictional history of a war that never happened.

And it is a well put together ATL if a bit dystopian...