|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 16, 2016 6:12:21 GMT -6
HR
You are right for a brief period of time but not for all of the time. Even a broken watch is correct two time a day.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 16, 2016 7:08:25 GMT -6
according to fred & tubman, Custer is a liar. Let's get something straight: I have never said or implied any such thing and if you ever put up another falsehood about me or what I said I will never have another thing to do with you other than to mock your stupidity. You will never again get a straight answer from me. It appears the only liar here is you. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 16, 2016 11:04:40 GMT -6
My own view is that hero is not a malicious poster.
He does get confused between facts and assumptions. But worse, when he hits the discussion phase of a post/topic; he blends emotional opinions with rational analysis.
I often do not discuss his posts, because I can not. I find myself doing 3rd grade English, trying to line up subject, with verb, with direct object I can not argue with a theory or hypothesis that is never stated.
Hero relies heavily on cutting and pasting previous posts. Ummm, to be honest, so does Fred.
The issue is linking that repost with current discussion, where hero has a problem
So besides fire buckshot at the guy, how do we draw hero into a reasonable discourse? You realize we went through this 2 years ago, when he was posting those enormous posts that were some type of newsletter software, embedded pictures of planes, etc. We complained, and hero has changed his posting formats and style.
Hero is consistent in his devotion to the boards. I see his posts cycle over time, on my internal scale of rational thought and emotional blather.
I have never met him, but I like his effort to contribute.
And we do have malicious posters. Heck, one moderates a board.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 16, 2016 11:14:10 GMT -6
HR, Sweetness, you are the one who throws around the term liar. I may have used it in response to one of your Reno liar rants. Would you care to point that out for me. Could have been regarding his testimony to congress, if you are looking for a starting point, but don't recall!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 16, 2016 11:29:54 GMT -6
My own view is that hero is not a malicious poster. I agree totally, but enough is enough. Disagree with me, fine, but quote me properly and do not accuse me of saying things I didn't. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 16, 2016 13:22:48 GMT -6
Tom, Fred,
Okay, I understand. The problem is hero is not consistent. He has decent posts, and then "what the hell is that" posts.
So let's do a micro analysis. Is LTC Custer a liar?
1. GAC is a liar. Ummm, yes. In no doubt, over his entire adult life. This is evident in hundreds of books, articles, and primary accounts. He has a court martial conviction that proves this. This has been discussed on these bards, in at least ten thousand posts.
2. Can liars be successful military commanders? Ask Napoleon or Caesar or MacArthur, or thousands more. Being a successful military commander is not some purity test. A degree of scoundrel has advantages.
3. I believe we have 2 factors that pollute LBH discussions: ethics and likeability. I do not care about the ethics of anyone at LBH. I do not care about whether a person had charisma, or not. So freaking what?
Whether in military or civilian organizational or work environments, there is no correlation between ethics or charisma; and job performance.
In fact, there are occasions where liars outperform the honest schmucks.
4. Given that LTC Custer is a proven and convicted liar, so what? How does that have any relevance to anything that happened in June 1876? He could have and should have won this battle, as a truth teller or liar. Show a relationship between his integrity and a battle outcome. Or shut the heck up.
5. I may get this term wrong. Value laden is a term I picked up in Grad school, all full of knuckle dragging SF/SEAL/AF Cdo. It means using terms with high emotional content, that obscures factual analysis. I am looking at a notebook from that school, full of pages of explanation that flew over my head, but that is my best understanding of the concept.
a. On these boards I see value laden terms used to support an opinion. But, far more, I see emotion used to derail an argument. Your opinion has very little probability of being valid. ( In fact, on these boards is certainly completely and utterly false, right up there with the sun revolves around the earth).
b. So vale laden arguments are a banzai charge. You know you are wrong, so you mass and charge to annihilation. Hopefully your tactical failure is glorious enough to distract or conceal from your tactical failure. Far more, your tactical failure leads to great focus on your tactical incompetence, vice your operational and strategic incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 16, 2016 14:39:51 GMT -6
4. Given that LTC Custer is a proven and convicted liar, so what? How does that have any relevance to anything that happened in June 1876? He could have and should have won this battle, as a truth teller or liar. Show a relationship between his integrity and a battle outcome. Or shut the heck up. Neither Reno or Benteen trusted him . Trust is everything in battle.You have to trust in your comrades,you have to depend on the man beside you doing his job. The no show support totally undermined Reno's confidence. Leaving Elliott to his fate was a breach in military ethics. I think even to this day The US searches for it's fallen in Vietnam. Keogh or chardvc ,who would have beside you in a tight corner ,the honest man or the slippy tit?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 16, 2016 14:52:38 GMT -6
Wild I agree the personalities and integrity of Custer and his fellow officers are important parts in the story of LBH. Heck if it was Reno buried on LSH instead of Custer it would probably be a battle that would only attract the interest of a handful of scholars. However things like personality and integrity aren't really a factor in a command and control discussion. A dirty rotten scoundrel may have the ability to command and control while the most sainted person may not.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 16, 2016 16:17:13 GMT -6
Hi Beth As a principle "dirty rotten scondralism" is a flaw in the system. It may be possible for the system to carry one dirty rotten scondral but if the entire high command was made up of practicing dirty rotten scondrals then there is going to be trouble. Watching a documentry re the selection process for the elete SAS and by the halfway stage all the dirty rotten scondrals had been weeded out. For dirty rotten scondral read not a team player .
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 16, 2016 16:26:38 GMT -6
Hi Beth As a principle "dirty rotten scondralism" is a flaw in the system. It may be possible for the system to carry one dirty rotten scondral but if the entire high command was made up of practicing dirty rotten scondrals then there is going to be trouble. Watching a documentry re the selection process for the elete SAS and by the halfway stage all the dirty rotten scondrals had been weeded out. For dirty rotten scondral read not a team player . I agree with everything you say. However rather than being a team player they are more likely they make very good team leaders--as long as the other members of the team are sycophants, easily lead, or still naive to the nature of the leader.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 16, 2016 22:13:15 GMT -6
Ducemus
What didn't you say?
You tell me, where I lied. I did not not and you cannot show that I did. I have shown you that Reno was a liar. By any reasonable standard of judgement, Terry misreported the battle to his superiores on 27th June 1876. Either Terry lied or Reno lied to him. Reno lied to Terry about the events of the battle. Reno was a liar.
Shall we start on his leachery and Bell's wife or attempting to suborn a witness?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 16, 2016 22:41:38 GMT -6
Tom, Fred, Okay, I understand. The problem is hero is not consistent. He has decent posts, and then "what the hell is that" posts. So let's do a micro analysis. Is LTC Custer a liar? 1. GAC is a liar. Ummm, yes. In no doubt, over his entire adult life. This is evident in hundreds of books, articles, and primary accounts. He has a court martial conviction that proves this. This has been discussed on these bards, in at least ten thousand posts. 2. Can liars be successful military commanders? Ask Napoleon or Caesar or MacArthur, or thousands more. Being a successful military commander is not some purity test. A degree of scoundrel has advantages. 3. I believe we have 2 factors that pollute LBH discussions: ethics and likeability. I do not care about the ethics of anyone at LBH. I do not care about whether a person had charisma, or not. So freaking what? Whether in military or civilian organizational or work environments, there is no correlation between ethics or charisma; and job performance. In fact, there are occasions where liars outperform the honest schmucks. 4. Given that LTC Custer is a proven and convicted liar, so what? How does that have any relevance to anything that happened in June 1876? He could have and should have won this battle, as a truth teller or liar. Show a relationship between his integrity and a battle outcome. Or shut the heck up. 5. I may get this term wrong. Value laden is a term I picked up in Grad school, all full of knuckle dragging SF/SEAL/AF Cdo. It means using terms with high emotional content, that obscures factual analysis. I am looking at a notebook from that school, full of pages of explanation that flew over my head, but that is my best understanding of the concept. a. On these boards I see value laden terms used to support an opinion. But, far more, I see emotion used to derail an argument. Your opinion has very little probability of being valid. ( In fact, on these boards is certainly completely and utterly false, right up there with the sun revolves around the earth). b. So vale laden arguments are a banzai charge. You know you are wrong, so you mass and charge to annihilation. Hopefully your tactical failure is glorious enough to distract or conceal from your tactical failure. Far more, your tactical failure leads to great focus on your tactical incompetence, vice your operational and strategic incompetence. DucemusThere is a problem to understand here, plain and simple and the problem is not mine. You do not have to respond but do. That's fine and so now I shall criticise yourself gently. You may feel that I have sympathy for Custer. Wrong. Completely wrong. Terry arrived to a hot trail in the valley, was lied to about events and spent the rest of the year trying to reacquire his target, until stood down. There were 50 wounded. A shortage of mounts. A riverboat tied up 20 miles away. Reno had the entire shebang back at Yellowstone depot, sat on duffs for five - six weeks, was it, while he put pen to paper that we know of, let alone that he did not include Cameron privately, to stab one and all in the backs, including Terry. Reno was a worthless piece of scum. You disagree i'm sure. Was Custer any better? Probably not, but he was in command and not Reno. Reno ran away and Custer couldn't because when Reno pulled out, the five companies were cut off from returning to Reno Hill and wiped out. Would that have happened if Reno had stayed in the valley and Benteen had not delayed his march. You tell me, No emotion, no bunny hopping and no acceptance of your very wayward and very loose ways of thinking. Here you are, LBH explained for you - it is very simple. Reno pulled out and did not wait for support. I fully understand your next ploy - time lines say... hehe. Could that battle have been won! By the U.S. Army. Some professional opinion - www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a401397.pdf Bradley C. Vickers Addendum - I have decided that as lead chapter on my forthcoming upom the chroniclers, Example 1 of which was to delve the W. Kent King mindset and its application to problem solving; is supplanted. I shall begin a page by page critique, review and overview in context of historical relevance, intellectual competence and the social relevance of 'The Strategy of Defeat', and its most unfortunate concept. I shall pursue this chapter of my work as a model research thesis for future students to provide a sound development context within which to challenge accepted wisdoms and their fredjudices. Decency has no place in the field of history and lonely dedications and its challenges. I hope to show how the power of one, has generated entirely emotional and unreasoned and unreasonable, response through a century and a half of drab hero worship of a villain and miscreant who should simply have been shot or hung from nearest tree. The example will I hope, consequence poor leadership (everywhere still today), its choices and responsibilities and show how minor players such as Reno can completely shape history and infatuate descendants to quite blindly obscene abuse in self interests. So let us whack on.......... The strategy review. ye ha,,,,,,,,,,,, You won't believe how effective, I am. The critique in this case will be broadly accepting and considerably praising of style, technique and accumen, which together offer prime example of counter intelligence as an undercurrent.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 17, 2016 0:22:51 GMT -6
Hero,
Thanks for responding. We mostly talk past each other.
As someone who had to study Latin for 6 years: Ducemus means We shall lead. There is also a connotation of we shall guide or instruct. The word duke is a word in English that survives from this term.
My problem is the term means a superior talking to inferiors.
My motto would be: We shall discuss. I desire a board where we discuss as equals.
I would like to thank you for stating that my posts are wayward and confused. You attacked what I wrote, vice attacked me as a person. That has been my goal for several years. Attack the post, not the poster.
It is late here, I will respond to the substance of your post tomorrow.
As a preview, you presume I love or hate the personalities of officers at LBH. I could care less, about any of them.
I follow the decision making process, and understand leadership and command; from both study and practice. So being a bad person is only a way to explain a bad decision, bad leadership, or bad command. My focus is critical decisions that led to the defeat, then figure out why.
So pick your favorite hero in history. Give him 3 companies to attack a village of 1500-3000 warriors, with no support from any other element. Hero or jackass, no commander or leader in the history of the world could win. Vast majority would suffer a GAC outcome, with zero survivors.
I blame GAC and Reno, regardless of how folks judge their personalities. Reno should never have gone farther than two tactical bounds from Ford A without knowing that GAC was supporting his attack. GAC should never have moved to the bluffs, certainly without telling his 3 subordinate commanders of what his plan was. And abandoning Reno, without any message is criminal. For this reason alone he would have been fired, with another GCM conviction.
Elliot is a different case. MAJ Elliot chose to pursue with a handful of men from various units, not even a company unit. He made no coordination with the regimental commander, nor with the company commanders from the various units. LTC Custer is blameless in the Elliot defeat. Further, GAC's decision not to go looking for the Elliot detachment was proper and prudent.
I will give you a better answer tomorrow, still recovering from the Patriots victory.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 17, 2016 9:24:54 GMT -6
Colonel William
Elliot is a different case. MAJ Elliot chose to pursue with a handful of men from various units, not even a company unit. He made no coordination with the regimental commander, nor with the company commanders from the various units. LTC Custer is blameless in the Elliot defeat. Further, GAC's decision not to go looking for the Elliot detachment was proper and prudent.
I might agree if the issue was one of a sand table exercise devoid of any human considerations. But Consider ;the Washita was not vital for the defence of the state and thus the mission was not everything . The action in which Elliot took off in pursuit of fleeing Indians was a melee.Pursuit of the enemy was all part and parcil of the engagement. As the fighting and slaughter died down there would have been a cease fire sounded and a rally and reforming with officers reporting the state of the companies to Custer. There were 20 men missing . Custer slaughtered a pony heard of several 100 ,set about burning the village ,finishing off the wounded and rounding up the women and children. Time to have sent out a search party . No search was attempted. I read that Custer's reputation suffered because of this and he certainly lost Benteen. When Benteen advised him "should we not keep the regiment together general" ? was he thinking "because of what happened to Elliot" And had Benteen not given a hostage to fortune with his newspaper article on the subject ; so that when faced with a similar situation himself at the LBH he decided to remain with Reno. If Elliot could have surrendered then yes I would agree that tactically Custer was correct. Regards Richard
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jan 17, 2016 9:32:38 GMT -6
"For a brevet or a coffin" and all that. Custer's error at Washita was having no idea that other camps were present. Without the 50+ captives he probably would have died at age 28.
Makes sense that this may have influenced his decision making at LBH.
Best,
David
|
|