Yes, I know.
I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the critics! (Damned pronouns.)
I was just laying out what they need to do to have a valid position rather than just blathering denunciations.

I've read your other historical military comments, so I'm quite sure you (singular :P) can provide a coherent argument to support your position.

And as it goes, I'm a tactical bombing advocate, so . . .

That (gay subplot) was certainly tedious but it didn't ruin it for me.

I suppose the reason the whole show hasn't jumped the shark for me yet is because it pretty much does that every episode anyway. It is all absurd and just keep getting sillier.
I actually felt a bigger shark jump in Eureka with the alternate timeline stuff. That really annoyed me, although this being the last season annoys me more.

Indeed.
If you want to debate the viability of the Geneva Conventions, particularly when dealing with Islamists and Marxists, fine.
if you want to debate the superiority of strategic bombing versus tactical bombing, fine.
But to do either you must understand the history of both, including the moral judgements made of them.
If you choose to skip that part then you will inevitably find yourself repeating the same justifications our enemies have used time and again, and ultimately the same mistakes we have made historically.

So we should let the excesses of our enemies define morality for us?
When your enemy strikes you on the cheek, cut both sides of his face to teach him a lesson?
To end injustice, double it?

We should have bombed military units.

There was a big debate right before the war started about what to do with aircraft, and the strategic bombing proponents won over the tactical bombing advocates.
As a result, more resources were put in the four and more engine long range bombers than into the one and two engine close air support bombers. This was accelerated after WW II in the U.S. where the strategic bomber force received the publicity and the funding, while purpose built tactical bombers disappeared until the army demanded the air force build the A-10 or let them do it.
It is a difficult question as to how differently the war would have gone if we had focused on close support tactical bombers and passed on the strategic bombers. Certainly the rebuilding after the war would have been different.

It should also be remembered that the aerial bombardment of cities had been declared illegal in the Hague Conventions that preceeded the Geneva Conventions, but everyone managed to forget about that during WW II in an effort to pursue the strategic warfare option. That it was again agreed to be unacceptable should be a telling sign about the morality of it.

I don't hate it yet, but I'm still not loving it the way I love Warehouse 13.
It isn't as mind-numblingly dull and revisionist as Sanctuary, it seems Lost Girl is stepping up to do that, but it just doesn't seem to be going anywhere in particular. The episodes seem to ramble along a plot line rather than stride confidently to some end.
Also, the entire first season plot line reminded me heavily of the basic set-up of Forever Knight, and seems to be repeating that but with a different antagonist. Hopefully it will do more than that as it continues.

Again you fail to offer any rebuttal and continue roaming from the topic.
And now you add playing "I'm rubber and you're glue" to the mix.
How . . . quaint.
I am sensing a pattern of farce coming from you.
Since you have nothing to say I will let you stand on that.

No.
I "insist" on having this conversation from the points I am making, not the strawmen you want to project onto me in order to establish your position.

As for "minutia", that is more commonly known as "all of the facts", and not merely a selective subset used to "prove" some offbeat theory.

I think by your obtuseness and attempts to attack the method of my presentation rather than the contents you are trying to blather me into conceding some legitimacy to your reply. (It does not qualify as a rebuttal.) Likewise your absurdity about drifting from the original topic when you fail to address it all.
I do not require you to concede anything; your own lack of reply does that for you, as well as establishing your intellectual dishonesty in replying in the first place.

Between Hunts Point and Whitlock - Hunts Point is underground, Whitlock is elevated.
A nice loop up and out, then on across the Bronx.

Of course the best elevated stretch in NYC is the one out to Rockaway past JFK. That's some nice scenery going across the bay, though a horrible place to get caught like those people did during the blizzard last year.

And what's worse is when they screw up the description and say its the remake when its the original or the original when its the lousy remake.