"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
That last sentence above does not make sense to me. We did not build them
to be destroyed, we hoped they would not be, but correctly realised that
many would be destroyed.

It's hard to convey a complex idea in a short paragraph. Conversely, a long
paragraph is likely to go unread. What to do?

Anyway, if it clarifies things a bit, with respect to the numbers of fighter
planes made, they were manufactured with a clear understanding that a large
number of them would be destroyed. The whole point of war is to destroy
things and people. That is, that may not be the desired end, but that
certainly is the chosen means to that end.

It is obviously not important to you to preserve them but it is to many
people. So what? Both points of view are valid.

I agree. My problem is with people who criticize others who happen to not
share their belief. Statements like saying that a person is irresponsible
for flying a P-51 in an air race, for example. It's one thing for a person
to take the time and effort to ensure that a P-51 is preserved for posterity
as best they can. It's quite another for them to try to take away *another*
person's right to use *their* P-51 as they see fit.

[...]
That's life and the human condition. To me tolerance of other people
foibles is something good. But that is probably irrational as well.

Most of what defines humanity is, in my opinion, irrational. I find
behavior of "lesser" animals to be much more rational and predictable than
that of human beings. My point is that humans would do well to recognize
their own irrationality, and not pretend that they have some logical
justification for their biases, especially when they are attempting to
exercise those biases to restrict the freedoms of someone else.

Of all people who ought to understand this, it is pilots flying in the US.
It doesn't surprise me that many don't, of course. That's part and parcel
of the irrationality that defines us all. But that doesn't stop me from
observing and commenting on it.

Pete