parsifal
Colonel
So is it fair to say that whereas the allies were using 100 Octane ona very widespread basis , from an early date, the Germans were later in their adoption of the fuel, and then only introduced it on a limited scale.....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My thesis, if this requires further clarification after my original posting on this forum, is that 100-octane fuel was supplied from a diversity of sources within and outside the US (in contrast to the received wisdom), but also was in widespread use during the Battle of Britain, as a mass of incontravertable primary source evidence demonstrates (in conformity with the received wisdom).
Yes, you have quoted one decision mentioned in my article about the planned use of 100-octane fuel in selected squadrons in 1939. However you then ignore the text and references which then indicate that this decision was overtaken by others.
Highlighting that first decision without exploring the subsequent changes to it is either mistaken or dishonest.
If you cite my work again, I would ask you to make it clear that I have explictly and publically disagreed with your revisionist appreciaton of the use of 100-octane in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain.
Micdrow,
In threads on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain hosted on this site, the poster known as Kurfurst has, aside from accusing me of making false claims;
1. Misrepresented and selectively distorted the results of my published work (in 'Hurricane vs.Bf-110' thread, on 1 January 2009 and repeated subsequently).
2. Ignored citations from original Air Ministry documents which disprove his belief (my post as 'gavinb' in 'Use of 100 Octane Fuel in the RAF during BOB' on 31 January 2009).
3. Been unwilling or unable to supply proof of his assertions when challenged (e.g. my post on 7 February 2009).
4. Accused me of lying about my identity without, apparently, having taken the most elementary steps to confirm it (his post of 5 June 2009). He has subsequently repeated this accusation elsewhere.
I suggest my responses have been entirely reasonable attempts to prevent somebody misrepresenting my work during which I have had to deal with accusations that I have impersonated myself. This would be comic if it wasn't for the issues of integrity which are involved. Having re-read my posts on this forum, I believe they have been a) entirely on-topic and b) remarkably civil in tone in the circumstances.
Micdrow,
Please re-read my posts, and particularly the last one. I am surprised and disappointed to see exactly when and where the prospect of censorship by moderators in this thread has actually appeared.
This has nothing to do with 'insults' or ad-hominems, at least from my end; absent Kurfurst's public accusation of impersonation I would not have responded in this forum again. If your moderation policy is being engaged to deny an author the facility to challenge erroneous statements about their work posted on your forum, or to respond to erroneous challenges to their identity also posted on your forum, then I believe - to say the least - that policy requires examination. As for arguing somewhere else, I have already been compelled to respond to Kurfurst's allegations of impersonation elsewhere. As they appeared to originate on this forum, I believe a public response here was appropriate.
I don't intend to waste any more of my time on this, but I do reserve the right to respond to further misrepresentations of my work or false allegations made about me in your forum or elsewhere, as I believe you or anybody else would.