Trench

Thanks again. I do try to take other people's experiences into consideration, but when I go against someone who had been in the army (who actually stood up to defend the state) I just can't win in an argument because he would have more credibility than me. I can give sources, but those all constitute second-hand proof, and that others assume that it would be disrespectful to challenge a soldier who had been in battle.

If I disregarded his experiences, then that would be; but if he were to proclaim himself an expert on matters he wasn't involved with, that wouldn't be the same thing. I wouldn't be questioning his validity as a soldier, but as an expert that he claimed to be.

And yet people take what I say as a direct attack on a guy who gave his blood and sweat for this country. How dare I? I would put more faith in a good set of sources from one like you than one guy proclaiming himself to know better than all of us... even if he did fight for the US military.