When I was roughly 12 - 14 years old, I was really, really into WWII history. Actually, I was into it for far longer than that, but in this period my father and I met an art dealer, who was in Alexandria, Virginia at the time. She dealt almost exclusively in paintings of aerial combat from WWII. Many of those paintings were signed, not only by the artist, but by the aces depicted therein. I was fascinated to find a couple of paintings with the signatures of Erich Hartmann and Adolf Galland. And then she dropped the bombshell - Galland himself often came to her gallery. Thus I managed to meet on several occasions, and briefly correspond with, a man whom Hitler had personally decorated. Galland was a likable guy. He was affable, self-effacing, and always ready to talk about aviation in the Second World War. Later I learned he had been involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler, and had not been shot mostly because of his propaganda value. He was sent to command a Me 262 unit - not a usual command for a fighter pilot general - in the hopes those fickle machines would kill him. When he failed to die in those jets, he took his entire command to Austria to evade capture by the Russians, giving the US a valuable asset from Germany's arsenal. This was my first foray into the world of morals in the shade of gray. I genuinely liked Galland. He made at least one huge friendly gesture to the US in the war, and he had soured on Hitler and tried to get him killed. But. Where was his outrage when Poland took the hit in 1939? He served Hitler well enough to become his youngest general. Was he one of the Good Guys, or not? I think, on the whole, not. Did he redeem himself? In my eyes, yes. But I could very well see the point of view of people who look at all of his actions at the end of the war and afterwards as serving multiple stakeholders, not least of which was .... Adolf Galland. I liked they guy. But I can see the perspective of someone who thinks he should have been hanged at Nuremberg. And thus we come to the point of this thread. There are people whose names seem to generate a fair amount of awe and respect on the boards. Some of that respect appears to be earned, in many cases. However, there also appears to be a reluctance to examine the full history and the actions of these people. Some of that, in the case of living posters, may be the result of an unspoken truce. The feuds between some of the critics do nothing except embolden the Co$. On the other hand, there are some legitimate beefs. I, myself am pretty leery of M&M until they come completely clean - as are a lot of folks. The funny thing I've observed, though, is certain people - especially those who have contributed to the informal history of the beginnings of the church - get a pass on their behavior. This would include, to my mind, Alan Walter, the Pilot and David Mayo. Now it looks as if this also includes Sara Northrup. Interesting... This, to an outsider, looks like Laffy's Kha Khan doctrine still in action. Mostly, these are people who suffered mightily at the hands of Laffy, but like Galland, not all of their behavior is pristine. It's perfectly legitimate to come to the defense of an old friend, but when that old friend has a lot of public, dirty laundry hanging out there, don't expect outsiders - or even all insiders - to bow to a desire to ignore the bad and praise the good. All humans are a mixture of bad and good, and we do them a disservice to put them on a pedestal when we are assessing their historical impact. Those of us who think the tech is dangerous in all its forms aren't going to cotton to anyone preaching it. I'll repost some posts from other threads, and have at it.