It appears that you didn't get the point I was trying to make by linking that article.
I was not posting that link to show off the achievements of WS-10. I was not arguing with you about how successful or unsuccessful the WS-10 development was, or how much praise should we give to AVIC. I was not judging the validity of that "WS-10 crash" statement based on whether it is a positive or negative news. None of these were the things I was trying to show.
My point from the very beginning has been that, in most cases, officially released information were much more reliable than what you hear from the so called "big shrimps" on the Chinese Internet. Yes, company statements and official media tend to gloss over things, and they often don't tell you everything we military watchers wanted to know, but they also have a pretty good track record of not making claims that were simply false. AVIC was under no pressure to confirm to the public whether the WS-10 caused any crash or not. Common sense would dictate that if a WS-10 crash did happen, they would simply omit talking about this, rather than going out of their way to insert a lie into their company statement. It would not make sense.
In contrast, what we hear from anonymous "big shrimps" on the Internet were far less reliable, for reasons I explained in my last post. Of course you can get a lot of information from these unknown sources and some of them could be very valuable, I'm not saying we should disregard them altogether, but I'd never put them at the same level of trustworthiness as official statements. Therefore, on this particular topic we're talking about here (whether WS-10 caused a crash), it is clear to me which answer was more likely to be true, especially when that "big shrimp's statement" wasn't even widely circulated on the Chinese Internet (indicates lack of corroboration).
In my previous post, I linked an article because you were saying that official sources tend to shy from describing troubles (and therefore we have to rely on "big shrimps" to get those information). If you read that article thoroughly, you would see that it summarized a lot of the troubles we now know about the WS-10's development. I was telling you, to the best of my knowledge, most, if not all of those details originated from old reports on China Aviation News, which was an official source. It did not came from the "big shrimps". It would be unwise to assume that we must rely on unofficial (hard to confirm) sources for negative news. After-all, sometimes the "big shrimps" themselves were just people being very good at searching and extracting information from open publication.
I don't expect anyone else to think exactly like I do, but I hope I've made it clear as to why I believed one claim rather than its opposing claim. This is my analysis on relevance and reliability. Given the presence of an official statement, I don't believe in rumors that WS-10 caused a crash, just like I don't believe in rumors of 001a having catapults. It has nothing to do with being unable to accept negative news on Chinese achievements. I sure hope that's not what you're suggesting.
I think you were inferring on the quality of big shrimps that I was referring to, when I'm extremely careful about what sources I use. But this has gone on extremely long without resolution, so let's stop this particular dispute here.
