It was 70-80 years ago and you were off by about 2 years. Inconsequential.
It makes zero difference to the meat of the story exactly how man Migs were shot down. The precise number is not the story.
You didn't say 'some guy' you said 'a guy', which has a different connotation.
jameshart|3 years ago
And just referring to a person who is named and credentialed in the article as 'a guy' just seems like throwing a layer of extra carelessness on top.
I just can't fathom how someone accomplishes this.
If there's one thing I try to encourage people to do in online discourse in general, it's to recognize that you don't have to guess. You have time to go look up the facts. Things are knowable, you don't have to vaguely gesture in the direction of the truth.
And in this case the op had the source right there! They must have googled up the link and opened the page and copied the URL! The facts were right there, in the next tab!
jimmygrapes|3 years ago
Person wakes up and browses interesting stories, remembers semi-relevant story, decides to comment about the similarity and forgets specifics. Realizes right before posting "oh shit I have to cite my sources or else pedants will ratio me into being unable to participate in other conversations" and quickly searches for a recent link that mostly backs up their commentary. Does not think to fact check every detail. Backfires.
ianburrell|3 years ago
The numbers matter too. Shooting down MIGs happened all the time. Dogfighting seven solo and shooting down four is a huge thing.
seanmcdirmid|3 years ago
ohyoutravel|3 years ago
ggm|3 years ago
nl|3 years ago