[ARC5] (no subject)

[Mike Morrow]

Richard wrote:

> I am a member of the Association for military history and the U.S. Naval
> institute and I assure you that they share my opinion.

The US Naval Institute is a great organization, but I'm not sure how memberships
in the cited organizations relate to the recent discussions.  With respect to
the USNI, I've been a member for 42 years...but I am unaware where it has declared
such "opinions" of that or similar type.  I may have been inattentive! :-)

It's amazing, talking about opinions, how people get upset when a statement with
which they disagree is made without a "in my opinion" attached to it.  But ANY posting
addressing ANY issue on ANY list or blog that has debatable qualities is always
opinion, even without that appellation explicitly attached to it.

But here it goes:  IN MY OPINION, an aircraft restored to be indistinguishable from
its military configuration (except weapons loading) but can't be flown due to FAA
constraints is far more *historically* and technically valuable than a flying version
for which a thick catalog of inside alterations and modernizations under civilian
ownership could easily be compiled.

I feel like I'm much closer to the real thing, standing next to a B-24 at the USAF
Museum, than I would next to one flown to the local airport to sell $400 quickies.
I praise the extraordinary efforts made in *both* cases and I don't begrudge the
required "contributions" for what is a terribly expensive enterprise...but IN MY
OPINION the former is superior to the latter, and also is far more likely to survive
and contribute to the historical record a century from now.

I suppose I apply similar philosophy when it comes to any military equipment, even
radios!

It is possible that some disagree, in my opinion.  That's fine with me...my
acceptance doesn't even matter, in my opinion.

Mike / KK5F