[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

I've spent the entire day arguing back and forth with Evil Tim about this and it has been exhausting, so I'd like to raise some points about him and his debate style that should be taken into consideration in this issue.

1: His basic argument is a fallacy. Everything he says keeps coming back to a variation of "everyone does it so it must be ok." I keep refuting this with the fact that common usage does not make something technically correct. He counters with "yes it does."

2: His basic position is false. He claims that "RPG" is a catchall term for personal antitank weapons. It isn't. I have never heard or seen "RPG" used to describe the M72 LAW, the AT4, the Carl Gustaf, the SMAW, the B300, the Armbrust, the Panzerschrek, the Bazooka, or any other shoulder launched recoilless antitank weapon.

3: He seems more interested in arguing with me than in correcting information. I went through about 10-15 articles originally, deleting the phrase "RPG" from sections on the Type 69. He changed back exactly 2 of them, RPG-7 and Terminator 3. When I undid his revisions, he almost immediately changed them back again, every time. He made no effort to revert any of the other articles, nor did he make any effort to edit any articles I had not changed to suit his position. Going through every instance of the Type 69, even just once, would have been easier, less tedious, and less time consuming then arguing with me over this for the last 12 hours.

4: He has a history of being difficult. On his user page it says that he used to be known as Dongs, Vangelis, and Vangelis2. I remember reading in old threads about Dongs/Vangelis being a bit of a pill in the Perfect Dark and Goldeneye 007 articles. I'm sure the people who were actually here when it happened can vouch for this.

5: He seems completely incapable of understanding certain basic concepts. Throughout my debate with him I kept repeating certain things multiple times. Key to our debate; he does not understand the difference between accepted usage and and preferred usage in language. He believes them to be one and the same. Nor does he understand the difference between literal translation (transliteration) and equivalent translation (using analogous phrases). This deficiency presented itself in a very strange argument he used which I will detail below.

6: Some of his arguments are bizarre. For some reason, he felt that bringing up a supposed naming dispute over a WW2 German tank was appropriate to the issue. The tank in question is the Tiger II, informally known as the Königstiger. Königstiger was translated by allied soldiers as "king tiger" or "royal tiger". the literal translation is "king's tiger", with "king tiger" being the most widely know translation. Königstiger is the German language phrase used to refer to Panthera tigris tigris, which is known in English as the Bengal tiger. If you understand that "Königstiger" and "Bengal tiger" are analogous phrases and not direct translations of each other, then you will understand the frustration I'm about to relay to you.

Evil Tim presented an article as part of his argument. The article claimed that "king tiger" is an incorrect translation of Königstiger, and that the Tiger II's informal name should be translated to Bengal tiger. Evil Tim presented this article originally as an example of what he thought I was doing wrong. He compared my position on "Type 69 RPG" to that of the author of the article on the Königstiger translation. The link he claimed was that we were both arguing for a claimed technically correct term that is not in common professional usage (Type 69 for me, Bengal tiger for the author), and therefore incorrect by his standards. I then explained how the author was incorrect in his assertion and was arguing from a position of not understanding how linguistic translations work. Evil Tim then flipped his position on the article and claimed that the author was correct in claiming that Bengal tiger was correct inspite of not being widely used, the exact opposite of the argument he'd been making the whole time. I think he may have flipped to support a previous argument he tried to make where he asserted that because of my position, I would logically want all German machine guns to be labelled as "machine rifles" because the German language analog to machine gun translates to "machine rifle" (much like the German phrase for submachine gun transliterates to "machine pistol").

If this sounds confusing, it's because it is. I'm not even sure if I'm remembering this correctly because of how mentally draining debating with Evil Tim is. It's late, I'm tired and frazzled, and I've spent several hours typing this post and replying to him with a headache while trying to dull the pain with Law & Order: SVU. If anyone wants to sift through the whole thing to try to make sense of it, the whole debate is on his talk page.

Please take this into consideration when determining the validity of anything he says.