Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
That is really the best summation of this whole argument.
There is not enough evidence for it to be decided with facts, only on opinion.
Reminds me of the 100/150 grade fiasco.....how many "tons" of that horse pucky was thrown around as proof of widespread adoption in gamer world.
|
If you have
any evidence that 87 octane was used in combat I would be very interested to see it. Kurfurst whole approach is to never supply any evidence to support his view but to nitpick at any evidence that is offerred the other way, magnify it and blow it up out of proportion.
So it would be nice to see someone prove that 87 octane was used in combat. Hundreds of books and pieces have been written on the battle. Many personal accounts have been published. It would be nice to find one, just one that says 87 octane was used, or even frustration at not having 100 octane available.
I have stated many times that the case for the use of 100 octane is a strong one but not a perfect one. However there is no evidence of any kind that says 87 octane was used in combat.
Instead of shouting from the sidelines it would be nice to see someone who supports the belief that 87 was octane was used in combat, to back up those shouts.
For instance, did Kurfurst ever get capt doggles included onto the thread that was supposed to support his case. If not did he even copy the details of the exchange and make them available to him. Penny to a pound says he didn't.
I have put up with a number of insults from Kurfurst and Captdoggles (who has gone very quiet) but just supplied documents to support my case being honest and admitting the case wasn't perfect. Now its time for Kurfurst and others who believe 87 octane was used to support their belief with something substantial
To put it another way, its time they put up or shut up