Frankly speaking, I'm getting just a little bit sick and tired of this continuous senseless bickering, this mocking, aggressive and spiteful tone, this having my own words continually quoted back at me as if they contain some momentous new revelation, etc. etc. etc., so I'll take a couple of weeks off from this thread.
In the (probably vain) hope that certain people will cool down in the meantime and realize that the purpose of the exercise is not to score points off each other, or "pulling people up" as Phylo puts it so gracefully.
Apologies to all those who may have found certain bits interesting, but there's only so much I'm prepared to put up with.
Gerard
Frankly speaking....? Well, frankly speaking, all the good content you've contributed is in my opinion at least outweighed by your unwillingness to take on board ANY of the points
your own material raises. You consistently ignore really MAJOR issues with your statements, and in among the facts throw out assumptions and personal opinions without proofs that whether you like it or not....and you don't....
don't have anything like the weight you'd wish them to.
Need we go over the list again? Your refusal to take on board that over 75% of the hutted acomodation at Lympne was totally destroyed and couldn't have accomodated 400 men, that
it didn't even warrant its own Commanding officer if it supposedly had a complement of 400 men, you own material shows that its AA Command-assigned defences were reduced by 50%, that the flightline couldn't be properly repaired, that on occasion it couldn't even re-arm or refuel aircraft...and yet the RAF were supposed to have left
400 valuable skilled and semi-skilled staff there against the chance of a damaged aircraft happening by...without setting at least
some of them to filling in holes??? Looking back at the issues with the emergency batteries, you've chosen to avoid the whole issue that even your
own contributed material shows that your example battery wasn't able to practice fire UNTIL their gunnery officers received training fron the Royal Navy...exactly as Lavery says...and then there was the statement I've invited you several times to corrrect that all the emergency batteries of 1940 in the proposed invasion
except one were at sea level...when at least two others were indeed above sea level. Not as high above it as Folkestone maybe, but still many feet above storm high water mark. It seems to have passed you entirely that elevation meant
range -
observed range
The batteries at Dungeness were
limited by being that close to high water, it wasn't an
advantage...given that at sea level
you can only see three miles to the horizon - seriously, why do you think BOPs were built as
high as available terrain or construction permitted?
Senseless bickering? Did it ever strike you that taking these points and reservations on board might have
improved your content? That they might actually have complemented your initial points if you had taken them and ran with them?
By the way - you do know how forums work, don't you? They're not vanity projects, the reason why any member CAN post in a thread is because they may just happen to see something contained in your posts that YOU don't...
this having my own words continually quoted back at me as if they contain some momentous new revelation, etc. etc. etc.,
...but in THIS case, where your own words are quoted back at you, it's to assist in pointing up oversights and refusals to countenance any alternative viewpoints.
And finally...
In the (probably vain) hope that certain people will cool down in the meantime
...it would appear there's only one of us needs to do that.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...