Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

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


Give one example to support this statement?


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.
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



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.



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

I don't care for your rubbish. The next time you lie about my or other people's posts or position they have taken, the proper course of action shall be taken. You refuse to disclose the documents in full, end of story.

Also please take note for the future that I have decided not to waste any more time on replying to your posts.

[Kurfürst]

From ANA.

[Kurfürst]

Proposals to secure sufficient 100 octane supplies.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Proposals to secure sufficient 100 octane supplies.

What the hell do these documents from late 1938 have to do with the BofB?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Can all stop the bashing and the personal attack please?

[41Sqn_Banks]

A.P. 3397 Maintenance (1954)

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

A.P. 3397 Maintenance (1954)

Brilliant! Where did you find this?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I don't care for your rubbish. The next time you lie about my or other people's posts or position they have taken, the proper course of action shall be taken. You refuse to disclose the documents in full, end of story.

Also please take note for the future that I have decided not to waste any more time on replying to your posts.

Everyone to the lifeboats.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I don't care for your rubbish. The next time you lie about my or other people's posts or position they have taken, the proper course of action shall be taken. You refuse to disclose the documents in full, end of story.

Also please take note for the future that I have decided not to waste any more time on replying to your posts.

You may have replied to my posts but you have rarely awnsered any questions or supported your statements.

This is another example of you throwing demeaning comments around and when asked to support, substantiate or provide examples, you run and hide. Sadly I expected nothing less.

I repeat, if you think that I have lied, provide examples that satisfy the Mods who are independent, and I will leave the Forum for good. Its a simple, clear statement I cannot and will not hide from.

Your inability to do this will speak volumes.

PS If Publishing some pre war papers that show that the RAF had plans to equip approx 2,500 front line aircraft with 100 octane around the end of 1940 is the best you can do then I feel secure

[fruitbat]

Kurfurst, you haven't shown any actual evidence, its that simple.

Lots of pre war documents and personal speculation/spamming/personal attacks, It's tiresome and irrelevant.