PDA

View Full Version : This way lies madness



Ratsack
06-26-2007, 03:55 AM
I've put this in a new thread, because I don't think the one on Late War Spits & 109s should be polluted.


However that may be, this:


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
.....The thread was locked when he (or mynamisroland) started accusing me of holocaust denial....
....

requires an explanation.

What on Earth are you blithering about, Kurfurst?

Ratsack

mynameisroland
06-26-2007, 03:59 AM
look here Ratsack, seems like you have been labelled too

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3861087665/p/11




Oh but dear Ratsack , you yourself got away with your accusations on me being a 'holocaust denier'... for which you did not provid any evidence - after you run out of valid, on topic arguements. You got your thread locked with your behaviour, though... So I sense a bit of hypocriticism in your post, the big crocodile tears and all that.

People were sceptical about Hop's relation to Jews/Isrealis, so I provided some post of his to let anyone judge.

Personally, when I see someone systematically criticize Israel and only the side Israel, again and again over the years, from little stories about Isreali settlers beating children to death with rifle butts to 'well reasoned' arguements how Isrealis steal land from Palestinians, cheat their deals, rob the US, make life a living hell for Palestinians, well then I begin to think that there's perhaps more behind the matter than just a legit criticism of Israeli policy.

I also ask you kindly to refrain from your petty personal comments, as they violate the rules of this board. There's also a civilized way telling us that you symphatize with Hop's person and/or his views on policies of The Jewish State.

He labels me in this thread

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1561005835/p/15

Ratsack
06-26-2007, 04:10 AM
Oh, I saw that when Kurfy posted it. I wondered what he was talking about then, but the thread was (mercifully) locked.

Nonetheless, he's publicly accused me twice of asserting that he, Kurfurst, is a 'Holocaust Denier'. I find that accusation odd because:

a.) I have no recollection of ever having done such; and

b.) 'Holocaust Denier' is not a term that I use. I would remember if I had.

As I said in the opening post of this likely short-lived thread, I think Kurfurst's utterances require an explanation.

Ratsack

mynameisroland
06-26-2007, 04:15 AM
In your WW2 fighters thread I said that he attempeted to re-write history firstly by ignoring the contribuition of slave labour used by the Nazi regime and secondly by likening British concentration camps to Nazi death camps in WW2.

For this Kufurst accused me of accusing him of being a 'Holocaust Denier' - as it were.

Ratsack
06-26-2007, 04:18 AM
Nevertheless, I require an explanation of Kurfurst.

Ratsack

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 04:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Posted 07-05-21, 16:48 Hide Post
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

He also is a revisionist when it comes to the topic of slave labour, attrocities and he makes a concerted effort to disrupt and discredit any conversation which does not meet his own personal opinion.

I don't think his depredations are restricted to those topics alone. Consider this thread for example. Wink

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems mynameisroland is stating that I am a revisionist for slave labour, and Ratsack agrees with that accusation.

So I call up both Ratsack and Mynamisroland to prove their accusation.

Readers are welcome to read this sad thread that was eventually locked because of that accusation by Ratsack and Mynameisroland, quoted abve, and to get an idea of what Ratsack, who nowadays misses 'civilised discussion', considers as such... most of us would disagree with the term I am afraid.
Appearantly Blutarski etc. had no problem performing a discussion in the real meaning of the term..

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1561005835/p/6

This one is very enlightening, or should say, the essence of what characterized his posts in the thread :

Posted 07-05-21, 13:50

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by Bewolf:

Kurfürst is right in one regard though. He brought a lot of pretty convincing sources. No matter the insults thrown around or percieved spins, but in this so far he has the better standing.



I disagree, Beowulf. I posted one reference for the plywood drop tanks earlier today. It's not my job to ensure Kurfy reads what is sent.

Regarding the E-3, Kurfy is clutching at straws. He is using a test of a prototype and a very weak inference drawn from WkNrs to conclude that more than a thousand E-3s were delivered before the commencement of hostilities.

If that were the conventional view, I agree, it would be up to me to provide counter evidence. However, it is not the conventional view. The vast majority of historians of the aeronautical aspects of the war agree that the E-3 was introduced in the second half of 1939. Do a Google search if you are skeptical. I invite you to do so.

So in this instance it is Kurfy who is proposing the hypothesis that requires evidence. This is a well established convention in Western thought. The philosopher Bertand Russell explained it as the Tea Pot analogy. It runs thus:

There may exist a china tea pot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. There may exist a person who fervently believes that this tea pot exists. However, the tea pot is too small for our telescopes to detect. Science cannot, therefore, prove that the teapot DOESN'T exist.

But when a normal person meets the lunatic who believes in the teapot, we don't believe him. If he wants to persuade us that the teapot exists, it's up to him to persuade, not up to us to provide proof that THE TEA POT ISN'T THERE.

Kurfy has provided us with a lot of teapots in this thread so far. He has arbitrarily extended the Battle of Britain from June to December 1940 and beyond (and then invoked Kershaw when questioned on it), he has claimed Bf 109 Fs in the Battle of Britain, he has claimed more than 1,000 Bf 109s of a type that most historians agree was not produced until after July 1939 were nevertheless delivered by the end of August that year.

That's just a brief list of the claims to fact that Kurfy has made in this thread. If we look at the misdirection, it is even worse. He has implied that a test of a Spitfire at 6+1/2 lb boost is representative of the Spitfire MkII running at 12 lb boost. He implied that the E-7 had the DB 601N motor as standard fitting in 1940 (or he was arguing at cross purposes: you make the decision). And so on.

I make no claim to impartiality. I openly admit that I think some of the German technology was amazing. I am a frank admirer of both the Focke-Wulf 190 and the Bf 109. However, I have been perfectly open about the criteria that I have used for my analysis from the very beginning. I made it explicit in the very first post in this thread that I was looking for a way to compare these machines that took account of the war situation, and was not just a rivet-counting exercise in technical masturbation. This means that some planes that on paper looked very good, but were employed in ways for which they were unsuited, will come off poorly. The Bf 109 E is one example of that.

Kurfurst's partisanship for the 109 is no secret. In that context, I make no apologies for offending his sensibilities in this respect. He has not actually addressed any of the key issues involved in that decision. If you look at it, my decision was based on the Spitfire being used for its design purpose, and the 109 E being used for a purpose for which is wasn't suited. I noted the poor quality of the drop tanks in my first post. I have since cited a reference on that. Note that Kurfy has had since the beginning of March to come up with a single reference suggesting that reliable drop tanks were available to the Jagdwaffe in the 2nd six months of 1940. It is actually Kurfy making the positive proposition, and it is therefore he that must provide evidence, not I. Regardless of that, I have humoured him and cited a source.

He continues to rail about the Spitfire's elevators and ailerons, but the well-known consensus of aeronautical historians pilots, contemporary and modern, is that the Spitfire was an easy plane to fly, where the 109 was a handful. Even the British tests that Kurfy quoted (in an effort argue a different point) support the view that contemporary pilots thought the 109 was a demanding aircraft.

So I strongly disagree with your view that Kurfurst has provided more information. He has thrown a lot of data around in his effort to muddy the water, and he's indulged in all manner of personal attacks. He has not, however, actually addressed himself to the issue, which is arguing to the criteria I expounded in my first post. He is welcome to disagree with those criteria, and start his own thread.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... and so on. Just so you know what he means when he we see the rolling of the eyes over the absance of civilized discussion on this board.

MEGILE
06-26-2007, 04:32 AM
Kurfurst is a doo-doo head, and he got suspended for a short period

mynameisroland
06-26-2007, 04:38 AM
Im not going to discuss this, there are links to the relevant threads and people can draw their own conclusions - at the time Kufurst said he had refered the matter on to the admins.

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 04:48 AM
Still waiting...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Posted 07-05-21, 16:48 Hide Post
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

He also is a revisionist when it comes to the topic of slave labour, attrocities and he makes a concerted effort to disrupt and discredit any conversation which does not meet his own personal opinion.

I don't think his depredations are restricted to those topics alone. Consider this thread for example. Wink

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratsack
06-26-2007, 05:01 AM
A simple,public apology from you will suffice, Kurfurst. You need wait no longer.

Ratsack

Whirlin_merlin
06-26-2007, 05:07 AM
With trepidadtion I feel I can spread some light on the 'slave labour' issue.

In a thread (not sure which) Kurfurst had made comments comparing when British and German manufacturing moved from a 'peace conditions' to 'war conditions' in terms of working hours.

I felt that Kurfurst seemed to make a point about how late German industry went on to 'war hours' as a testament to German industrial supremacy and a sign of general British duffness.

I then felt the need to point out that unlike in Britian, Germany made use of forced/slave labour to make up the short fall.

If memory serves K then made reference to the use of POWs, I felt this was avoiding the issue and posted an image of female Jewish workers/prisioners.

K responded with a picture of civilian Boer prisioners held by the British during the Boer War. I still can't see what that had to do with it.

In my opinion there followed a fair bit of wriggling before he did indeed criticise the use of slave labour (well atleast acept it was wrong).

You will notice heavy use of the word feel/feelings above.

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 05:08 AM
Public apology for what, my dear? For you calling me a holocaust denier?

I am afraid the one owing a public apology is you, Ratsack, but you're not the type to expect it to happen from.

Feathered_IV
06-26-2007, 05:12 AM
C'mon guys. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Ratsack
06-26-2007, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Public apology for what, my dear? For you calling me a holocaust denier?

I am afraid the one owing a public apology is you, Ratsack, but you're not the type to expect it to happen from.

Your options are simple, Kurfurst. They are:

1.) show where I have called you a 'Holocaust Denier'; or

2.) apologize for your insulting error; or

3.) do neither of the above and thus demonstrate yourself to be the liar you are.


So far you appear to opting for option 3. I encourage you to reconsider.

Ratsack

Hoatee
06-26-2007, 05:20 AM
Systems shoudn't be promoted, they should be implemented.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-26-2007, 05:24 AM
- DELETED -

Makes no sense to shed some light into this anyway and I doubt everybody here would understand the difference between POW- and concentration-camps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Public apology for what, my dear? For you calling me a holocaust denier?

I am afraid the one owing a public apology is you, Ratsack, but you're not the type to expect it to happen from.

Your options are simple, Kurfurst. They are:

1.) show where I have called you a 'Holocaust Denier'; or

2.) apologize for your insulting error; or

3.) do neither of the above and thus demonstrate yourself to be the liar you are.


So far you appear to opting for option 3. I encourage you to reconsider.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

He also is a revisionist when it comes to the topic of slave labour, attrocities and he makes a concerted effort to disrupt and discredit any conversation which does not meet his own personal opinion.


I don't think his depredations are restricted to those topics alone. Consider this thread for example. Wink

cheers,
Ratsack
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are now not only calling me a 'revisionist for slave labour and attrocities and worse', but also a liar ?

I think you should be *very* quick explaining these statements of yours, or revoking them and making a convincing attempt to apologize.

I afraid it's clear as day above where and when you've made such serious accusations, and pretending you didn't won't help your case.

SeaFireLIV
06-26-2007, 05:32 AM
This is like a very slow burnings of the stake... A kind of measured flaming...

The mods are either asleep or watching very... carefully...

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 05:54 AM
What I find odd is that some feel being licenced to call others 'revisionist for slave labour and attrocities'[i] [i]'and worse', which is the same as saying a holocaust denier without saying the word itself.

What is really shocking, that later the same person opens a flamethread denying it, asking for where and when, and when his post is shown to him as he requested, he adds to the insult saying the other 'demonstrate yourself to be the liar you are'.

It's amazing how much some people think they can get away with.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
06-26-2007, 05:56 AM
Gimme an "I!"...
Gimme a "B!"....
Gimme a "T!"....
Gimme an "L!....

Capt.LoneRanger
06-26-2007, 06:09 AM
I

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

B

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

T

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

L

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Ratsack
06-26-2007, 06:33 AM
Is that it, Kurfy? You're falling back to the 'you said this but it actually means that' argument?

You've just proved yourself to be an unrepentant liar.

Ratsack

MEGILE
06-26-2007, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
With trepidadtion I feel I can spread some light on the 'slave labour' issue.

In a thread (not sure which) Kurfurst had made comments comparing when British and German manufacturing moved from a 'peace conditions' to 'war conditions' in terms of working hours.

I felt that Kurfurst seemed to make a point about how late German industry went on to 'war hours' as a testament to German industrial supremacy and a sign of general British duffness.

I then felt the need to point out that unlike in Britian, Germany made use of forced/slave labour to make up the short fall.

If memory serves K then made reference to the use of POWs, I felt this was avoiding the issue and posted an image of female Jewish workers/prisioners.

K responded with a picture of civilian Boer prisioners held by the British during the Boer War. I still can't see what that had to do with it.

In my opinion there followed a fair bit of wriggling before he did indeed criticise the use of slave labour (well atleast acept it was wrong).




Excellent reply, and all that needs to be said.

Whirlin_merlin
06-26-2007, 06:43 AM
I should add that that is my recollection and may be flawed, if some one more skilled in the art of the serch function could find it, then people could decide for them selves.

MrMojok
06-26-2007, 06:46 AM
There's no Tacticool(TM) in this thread.

Feathered_IV
06-26-2007, 06:53 AM
How very appropriate the thread title is.

Honestly guys, can't you take your obsessive verbal buggery somewhere else???

neural_dream
06-26-2007, 06:55 AM
This thread is useless without pics:


http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000J2GCRE.01-A2Y624Y5TXKSKI._SCLZZZZZZZ_V40841499_.jpg

Is this Tacticool(TM) enough?

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 07:01 AM
Neural,

I liked the chicks with guns better. Can we get it back, please.. ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-26-2007, 07:13 AM
I would just like to point out that I have/had nothing to do with this thread!

Oh and IBTL

LStarosta
06-26-2007, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
There's no Tacticool(TM) in this thread.

This thread is now Tacticool™ized.

MrMojok
06-26-2007, 08:02 AM
And not a moment too soon Luke!

neural_dream
06-26-2007, 08:25 AM
IMO no1, mods shouldn't use their mod superpowers when old friends have a forum-fight. It's not like little kids will be hurt or anything. Kurfy's forum-fights are always teh best, because he successfully defends the wrong opinion with teh most concrete arguments. Kinda like Thank you for smoking.

IMO no2, raaaid should be invited in one of these as an initiation rite.

leitmotiv
06-26-2007, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
How very appropriate the thread title is.

Honestly guys, can't you take your obsessive verbal buggery somewhere else???

Voice of right reason.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-26-2007, 08:31 AM
You want chicks with guns, you get chicks with guns.

http://www.humorek.com/obrazki/2005-04-20-sroda/chicks_with_guns.jpg

SeaFireLIV
06-26-2007, 09:02 AM
I prefer neural_dream`s.

Manu-6S
06-26-2007, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I would just like to point out that I have/had nothing to do with this thread!

Oh and IBTL

I don't believe you!!

Got Track?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
06-26-2007, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
You want chicks with guns, you get chicks with guns.

http://www.humorek.com/obrazki/2005-04-20-sroda/chicks_with_guns.jpg

One for Seafire...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsnWZlEQyLA

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Daiichidoku
06-26-2007, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Nevertheless, I require an explanation of Kurfurst.

Ratsack


first, take a screw

then, take a ball

put them togther

VIOLA!

SlickStick
06-26-2007, 09:41 AM
Wow, how inanely petty this place has become. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

SeaFireLIV
06-26-2007, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
You want chicks with guns, you get chicks with guns.

http://www.humorek.com/obrazki/2005-04-20-sroda/chicks_with_guns.jpg

One for Seafire...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsnWZlEQyLA

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Phew, very nice. Though I`d have to disarm `e of those guns first I think...

foxyboy1964
06-26-2007, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I prefer neural_dream`s.

so do I...I wonder if she'd like to see some puppies.

PBNA-Boosher
06-26-2007, 10:05 AM
Gotta love how people don't know that private topics exist.