Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinb
The problem here is the behaviour of one poster in particular.
In the case of nztyphoon at least, he is accurately posting information from a previous 'discussion' elsewhere in which Kurfurst misrepresented my reserarch and my personal views. I note Kurfurst is doing this again to further his own rather selective and ahistoric views on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain.
In my case I went to the trouble of researching the issue and then publishing an article on it in a respected peer-review publication. I've received a fair number of inquiries as a response, most of which have been genuine expressions of interest from people interested in the subject, and I've generally been happy to pass on further details from my research in response. However, since Kurfurst started up in about 2009 I've had about as many inquiries from people questioning me on the basis of what they've read about my work in online debates started by Kurfurst.
In the case of Kurfurst, nobody claiming to be him has ever attempted to contact me before repeatedly misrepresenting my views, and then accusing me of impersonating myself, and all on public forums. This has been done on ww2aircraft.net, wikipedia and now here.
This is discreditable to the point of being comic, but in my view a more serious issue for anybody who wants these internet dicussion forums to be taken seriously is the way in which more responsible contributors are forced on to an equivalent level with participants such as Kurfurst by the editorial approach on forums such as this. There is no illusiary middle-ground to be found here; Kurfurst's behaviour has clearly been (and apparently remains) ahistorical mendacity. Anybody in any doubt about this should familiarise themselves with the details of Kurfurst's behaviour as posted previously.
One minor result of this is that I don't feel any encouragement to contribute anything to sites like this or ww2aircraft.net because there is little or no value to be had from being pressured by lies to engage in 'debates' where genuine information and discussion is so consistently distorted by the activities of trolls.
I don't gain anything from this. Quite the opposite. In fact, even when I don't participate in the discussion, as a result of Kurfurst's behaviour I am forced to waste time that I would prefer to spend completing a new book in dealing with three-year old canards which have already been refuted. But the alternative is that the only exposure many will have to my work is through the wilful distortions of Kurfurst. Therefore I'm indebted to people like nztyphoon who have actually taken the trouble to challenge Kurfurst's views and accurately represent mine. The evidence posted by several people in response to Kurfurst has been genuinely informative, and I'd like to thank them for the effort.
One last point. I'm not that concerned with specific responses to Kurfurst, as he has been refuted before, and given his inability to modify his views or posting behaviour in response to evidence, continued debate with him is a waste of time and effort. However, the allegation that I hold anti-American views is a new departure, and I'd like to respond to that here.
In my view, the development of the Anglo-American alliance was both a fundamentally-important objective of British strategy, and was also critical to a successful outcome of the Second World War. However, any understanding the historical reality of how that alliance developed and how that war was fought must proceed from the historical evidence, regardless of any impact that has on post facto anti- or pro-American or British views held more than sixty years later.
If anybody wants to, they can contact me via the email address given on my departmental website -
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/
In the meantime, I suggest a more constructive approach would be to ignore Kurfurst and concentrate on the evidence other posters have already provided here and elsewhere which refutes Kurfurst's views but is also of larger historical interest.
Gavin Bailey |
Hello Dr Bailey. Rest assured that people who have been around many aviation and simming interest forums know all about a certain parties maliciously disruptive MO, their propensity to level scurrilous and completely unfounded allegations, and willfully mendacious behavior. He is still permanently banned from 'Warbirds' ww2aircraft.net, as well as serving a life time ban from editing wiki.
As you are well aware, there are very good and justifiable reasons for this, despite the many warnings he has had, as well as temporary bans (on other forums too) he will not adjust his behaviour. The leopard never changes its spots. Though of course it is all some elaborate 'grand conspiracy' and nothing whatsoever to do with the poster themselves actual conduct.
Its just other people.
It really doesn't matter what he or Kettenhunde-Crummp 'think', as anyone with a modicum of intellect can see that their 'arguments' such as they are, hold no water. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that only 16 (or even 19) squadrons were using 100 octane in the Battle of Britain for some kind of 'test purpose' (or safety, or supply problems), it was in use and tested well before (dating back to the Battle of France, as has been conclusively shown), with primary source evidence.
To maintain that the pre war Morgan-Shacklady document, predating the BoB by some 18 months, represents
what actually happened in practice, when there is an
avalanche of corroborated evidence in this thread to the contrary (well done to all concerned), is simply risible. When one examines the facts, there is really
no 'controversy' whatsoever regarding the widespread FC use of 100 octane fuel in the BoB. Its not unlike the deliberate types of '
Faux-controversy' manufactured by for example Creationists under the guise of 'fact' with rubbish like Intelligent design, when in fact there is no controversy in the scientific community at large at all.
Some people seem to have a problem with understanding the basic requirement to
qualify a statement or assertion with actual
evidence. They can 'believe' what they want of course, but its not quite good enough for the purpose of historiographical inquiry. As you of course are well aware, hehe.
People are still waiting for the mountain of combat reports detailing the allegedly predominant use of 87 octane fuel in the BoB by fighter command, which if this were true (and it most certainly is not) would of course be a relative cinch to find. They also eagerly await the infamous '16 squadrons' designated for 100 octane use, with proof and details of their supply during the battle itself. Strangely, this information is
conspicuous by its absence and does not appear to be forthcoming.
I believe that the vast majority of reasonable, thinking people know why.
Anyway, don't worry Gavin. We know. Case closed.
Cheers.