Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

If I read things rightly this is where we came in...about 94 pages ago! Really, this thread has run its course - if Crumpp wants to continue with his evidence avoidance, fact evasion, all round inability to respond to direct questions and general time wasting he can do so alone. I have far more important things to do with my life.

Actually, you don't have more important things to do with your life. It's sad.

You are insecure and frustated, and anyone with some brain matter sees that you are just trying to get some reassurance and attention. Confident people do not get a heart attack over every issue or different opinion, nor they seem to be hell bent on to follow people to various discussion boards just to bark at them all day like you do.

You quite simply do not have a life, and it shows. You seem to think its important to follow up your discussion partners to various forums and continue your pathethic little feud there as well, and you probably think you are a smart and extremely cunning person if you constantly scheme and try organize a lynch gang via PM. To me it just proves you have no priorities for life.

Maybe you even like to entertain yourself you are some sort of expert of the subject or a historian - you try so hard to portray yourself as such at wiki - where you spend the rest of your day. Maybe this has something to do that you can't even seem to be able to finish your studies for long-long years now. Too much time on forums and scheming on wikipedia to always have the last word, eh? But, I am sure you find it satisfying enough.

Others have noted as well that the thread had become increasingly demented. That's a curious observation, since all I can see is your posts: big words thrown about by a child. Myself, I haven't even bothered to make a post a single post in the last 200 posts or so. But you seem to be enjoying talking to yourself very much, and hoping for some response, so there you go, this is the only one you'll get to disabuse you of any illusions.

You cannot seem to get why others attidude towards you have become, as you put it, an 'all round inability to respond to direct questions'. Let me clarify that for you. I think I can speak in Gene's name, too when I say that we are not responding to you because you are well past of taken seriously. You don't have anything to say anyway, so we do not waste any time on you. Capiche?

[Al Schlageter]

More like you Barbi, and Eugene, have nothing to say in response to the overwhelming evidence that 100 octane fuel was in widespread use during the BoB.

Your 16 squadrons that were the only squadrons that used 12lb boost, 100 octane fuel has been busted thoroughly.

[28_Condor]

The most boring in this forum are these type of personnal attack

I want reference of research, not opinions...

I started with wikipedia too (why not?):

A meeting was held on 16 March 1939 to consider the question of when the 100 octane fuel should be introduced to general use for all RAF aircraft, and what squadrons, number and type, were to be supplied. The decision taken was that there would be an initial delivery to 16 fighter and two twin-engined bomber squadrons by September 1940.[26] However, this was based on a pre-war assumption that US supplies would be denied to Britain in wartime, which would limit the numbers of front-line units able to use the fuel.[27] On the outbreak of war this problem disappeared; production of the new fuel in the US, and in other parts of the world, increased more quickly than expected with the adoption of new refining techniques. As a result 100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940.[28] [N 1]

(...)
[28] Payton-Smith, D J. Oil: A Study of War-time Policy and Administration. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1971. (no ISBN) SBN 1-1630074-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf..._aviation_fuel

If this is wrong I want references about

[Glider]

Kurfurst
Your last posting, I believe they call that a very reflective piece.

[Sutts]

Yes, Kurfürst argument totally busted.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Actually, you don't have more important things to do with your life. It's sad.

You are insecure and frustated, and anyone with some brain matter sees that you are just trying to get some reassurance and attention. Confident people do not get a heart attack over every issue or different opinion, nor they seem to be hell bent on to follow people to various discussion boards just to bark at them all day like you do.

You quite simply do not have a life, and it shows. You seem to think its important to follow up your discussion partners to various forums and continue your pathethic little feud there as well, and you probably think you are a smart and extremely cunning person if you constantly scheme and try organize a lynch gang via PM. To me it just proves you have no priorities for life.

Maybe you even like to entertain yourself you are some sort of expert of the subject or a historian - you try so hard to portray yourself as such at wiki - where you spend the rest of your day. Maybe this has something to do that you can't even seem to be able to finish your studies for long-long years now. Too much time on forums and scheming on wikipedia to always have the last word, eh? But, I am sure you find it satisfying enough.

Others have noted as well that the thread had become increasingly demented. That's a curious observation, since all I can see is your posts: big words thrown about by a child. Myself, I haven't even bothered to make a post a single post in the last 200 posts or so. But you seem to be enjoying talking to yourself very much, and hoping for some response, so there you go, this is the only one you'll get to disabuse you of any illusions.

You cannot seem to get why others attidude towards you have become, as you put it, an 'all round inability to respond to direct questions'. Let me clarify that for you. I think I can speak in Gene's name, too when I say that we are not responding to you because you are well past of taken seriously. You don't have anything to say anyway, so we do not waste any time on you. Capiche?

When people start talking like that it is clear they've lost the argument. Let's give it a rest now please.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 28_Condor

The most boring in this forum are these type of personnal attack

I want reference of research, not opinions...

I started with wikipedia too (why not?):


(...)
[28] Payton-Smith, D J. Oil: A Study of War-time Policy and Administration. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1971. (no ISBN) SBN 1-1630074-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf..._aviation_fuel

If this is wrong I want references about

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

Its not too difficult to find out that the editor falsifying wikipedia was Minorhistorian, NZTyphoons local handle. He was busy pushing that agenda (and equally busy removing any references to the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle in all articles. As a matter of fact, he seems to be very busy degrading any Luftwaffe related article).

He added the line "100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940" and 'quoted' Payton-Smith, because wikipedia generally require references, but in reality Payton-Smith says such thing nowhere.

It's quite simply that our friend NZTyphoon wanted his own opinion represented there, and to give weight to it he falsified the source.

Quite a bit like when lane manipulated the May 1940 paper on his website.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

Comedy gold.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

How many times have you had temporary bans from editing items on Wikipedia? I think it was eight, but it might have changed by now.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

Its not too difficult to find out that the editor falsifying wikipedia was Minorhistorian, NZTyphoons local handle. He was busy pushing that agenda (and equally busy removing any references to the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle in all articles. As a matter of fact, he seems to be very busy degrading any Luftwaffe related article).

He added the line "100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940" and 'quoted' Payton-Smith, because wikipedia generally require references, but in reality Payton-Smith says such thing nowhere.

It's quite simply that our friend NZTyphoon wanted his own opinion represented there, and to give weight to it he falsified the source.

Quite a bit like when lane manipulated the May 1940 paper on his website.

This from the "editor" who has been blocked from editing in Wikipedia: because of his disruptive and contentious attitude

after being blocked several times before: then tried to sneak in again under his ISP no. and has been blocked - again:

and his "contributions" like these: and these - meant degrading every article on Allied equipment he could lay his paws on while busily promoting everything German, and tying up the discussion pages with endless conflicts because of his constant abuse of references. That he takes himself so seriously - priceless!