Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
Well can we see the contents of AIR documents or not? We have been asking for them for three years, you REFUSE to show the whole document.
That's a fact David.
|
I have shown everything that I have. I repeat its easy for you to obtain copies of the papers. Find that I have witheld anything of importance (and I will let the mods decide) and I will apologise to one and all and withdraw from the forum. If you repeat these allagations without support then I expect you to apologise and withdraw from the forum.
Call my bluff
Quote:
|
Its your opinion, not Pips. You certainly like to misrepresent other people's positions.
|
Give one example to support this statement?
Quote:
|
Dear David, you are pretending again that you have not been answered on that multiple times. I have made it very clear to you that the above is based on the documents Pips has found.
|
No one has seen the papers that Pips is supposed to have found, not even you. If it was that easy for him then something would have appeared.
Quote:
Asking me to provide the papers Pips found in Australia was silly in the first place, pretending I am refusing to supply the papers I have nothing to do with for the umpteenth time is dishonest.
|
Then all you have is Pips unsupported posting.
You have
a) No supporting information that there was s fuel shortage
b) No mention in the Cabinet War papers for May saying that the roll out was halted.
It is by definition an unsupported posting
Quote:
|
Yada-yada-yada, the usual BS, repeated forever in Goebbels style. I have made my position very clear, several times. It seems redundant to repeat it again, since your standard operational procedure in the past was, and is ever since, to wait a few days and lie again that nothing was provided, not even the position was made clear etc.
|
Then prove my lie (another accusation I note) find where you stated your belief. The only ones that I know of are your statement re the use of 100 Octane in France, and a couple of years ago a statement that you supported Pips view that approx 145 fighters were converted.
If you believe that its the 16 + 2 then say so and I will never ask the question again, ever. But I will ask how you support that view.
Quote:
|
All what you have done yourself so far is keep making the same statements, ignore other's position and even your very own papers, and then lie that they have supplied nothing and did not make their position clear. Its a petty attitude.
|
Again prove my lie, show me what you have supplied and my very own papers. We have a different view on what certain squadrons means, that I agree but the paper trail I believe supports my view and I ham always happy to stand by it.
You keep making these statements and its time to support them