|
|
Post by pequod on Feb 20, 2018 23:47:30 GMT -6
AZ,
Were you asleep in English grammar 101, of course you were? "Are you sure you know where you are at?" What's wrong with that sentence? Never mine, it's over your head.
Robb
|
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 21, 2018 5:51:30 GMT -6
You are easy I told him to use a preposition at the end of a sentence to bait you several days ago. Like I did last year to watch you jump on it. You jumped on it and still have added nothing, Rumplestiltskein! So we see where you are going to.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 21, 2018 6:31:58 GMT -6
You are easy I told him to use a preposition at the end of a sentence to bait you several days ago. Like I did last year to watch you jump on it. You jumped on it and still have added nothing, Rumplestiltskein! So we see where you are going to.You are right Tom it worked like a charm. Regards Steve |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 21, 2018 6:38:21 GMT -6
Robb Since you are an OED fan maybe you should straighten them out. en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/ending-sentences-with-prepositionsThere’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.
You can read more about ending sentences with a preposition on the Oxford Dictionaries blog. Here you will find more information about prepositions and their relationship with other elements. It was fun watching your reaction though and Tom gotcha Regards Steve *** Notice that Robb fails to acknowledge the Oxford English Dictionary website because they poured him back into historical academic old English box and Robb fails to understand "Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English" |
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Feb 21, 2018 6:42:52 GMT -6
I am guy in bottom row, 2nd from left. Is the guy to the far left by any chance the brother of the man leaning on the mini-gun? Or did they just use the same barber? |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 21, 2018 13:25:39 GMT -6
Lazy ranger and Tubbyman13.5, Nice try, but you're both as transparent as any 3rd grade failing student. However, there's still time for you to learn from history, as long as it's not the history you exhibit here. Cheers, Robb B3 |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 21, 2018 13:48:34 GMT -6
I think volley fire would be anything louder than a single shot from a location and also has a duration time factor. A single shot at 10 feet away is much louder than 50 shots at 2 miles. It is the duration that distinguishes it in my opinion. I think it could not be used a distress signal since without knowing who fired the shots it not be significant. Indians firing from ambush would produce the same sound level.
My thoughts on sound level is that sound levels of gunfire at several miles distance is less than conversation levels and can easily be blocked by concentrating on something else. So what I believe occurred is that some sitting around doing nothing or some that stopped to listen may have heard shots and even many shots together enough to call it volley. The only thing it would mean is that they heard what sounds like multiple weapons fired at nearly the same time.
I would guess every time Godfrey fired while conducting his rear guard action from Weir it would sound like volley fire if done correctly. That doesn't mean the others should consider it a distress signal.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 21, 2018 23:28:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Feb 22, 2018 2:03:47 GMT -6
I`ll check when I get home from work, but I`m sure Donovan in his book claims volleys were used as a signal between Custer`s Right and Left wing to pull back from Ford B. What he based it on I can`t remember.
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 22, 2018 2:49:48 GMT -6
The wing system did not exist at LBH, it had been ended long before battle. Donovan's citations are suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Feb 22, 2018 3:37:29 GMT -6
The wing system did not exist at LBH, it had been ended long before battle. Donovan's citations are suspect. True, my bad, like many authors I just tend to use the term to distinguish between the two groups within the Custer Battalion. Ad hocs all around. As for Donovan`s citations, I`ll agree even though it`s a while since I read his book. I`m pretty much a novice at the LBH compared to folks here, but reading him for the first time I remember reacting to a couple of things. Among others about Sitting Bull actually fighting, and the whole thing about him talking to the dying Dorman. But as far as I can recall, it`s better than Philbrick`s. Or...hm, maybe i should give both a new read. On a side note, but speaking of; how did the "community" react to these two books? They came out pretty close to each other, had similar takes and even used the same maps. To me it seemed a little like when Hollywood companies make films about the same topic at the same time (White House Down-Olympus has Fallen etc). |
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 22, 2018 16:17:01 GMT -6
Donavan is a decent human being historian. He has a relationship with Wagner, so ask him.
Philbrick is a fraud, a disgusting human being. He is an Ambrose clone, where 90 percent of his work is unattributed, stolen from others.
Recent discussions have involved historical fiction. Philbrick writes historical fiction, claims it is real, and every damn thing he writes is stolen from others.
There is a category of good historical fiction, but then there are the criminals like Philbrick and Ambrose.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 22, 2018 18:29:48 GMT -6
Donavan is a decent human being historian. He has a relationship with Wagner, so ask him. Philbrick is a fraud, a disgusting human being. He is an Ambrose clone, where 90 percent of his work is unattributed, stolen from others. Recent discussions have involved historical fiction. Philbrick writes historical fiction, claims it is real, and every damn thing he writes is stolen from others. There is a category of good historical fiction, but then there are the criminals like Philbrick and Ambrose. Jim Donovan is a good guy and a decent historian. I think his book, A Terrible Glory is a bit overdone, but a good general history of the whole shooting match. He shows the usual and obvious biases even though his character vignettes are, in my opinion, the best thing about his book. When I talked to him about it, he expressed his greatest pride in his RCOI work, but I saw nothing remarkable about that aspect. He also took particular pride in his endnotes work, but as Dark Cloud once said, notes are not always what they are cracked up to be and unless they are significant, the number is meaningless. I agree; Jim's are-- for the most part-- good. My biggest gripes about his work is his prejudicial treatment of both Reno and Benteen, all to their detriment and the glorification of George Custer. You can do one without finding it necessary to do the other, but so many of these writers and so-called battle students have not yet begun to figure that out. Philbrick's book is not worth the money. He makes a few good points and his Custer battle treatment is surprisingly good, but he may have been convinced by Richard Fox' work... that is a guess. The book by T. J. Stiles is very good, the best and most honest assessment of George Custer, supported by outstanding endnotes. If you want a lesson of the value and efficacy of notes, check out the Stiles book: the man is a pro. In the entire book, I found only a single incident where he was at a loss to justify an opinion. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 23, 2018 9:54:07 GMT -6
Sure is nice to see montrose and Fred posting again. Just like the old days when I was young!!!
Glad to have y'all back!!
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Feb 26, 2018 2:48:07 GMT -6
Donavan is a decent human being historian. He has a relationship with Wagner, so ask him. Philbrick is a fraud, a disgusting human being. He is an Ambrose clone, where 90 percent of his work is unattributed, stolen from others. Recent discussions have involved historical fiction. Philbrick writes historical fiction, claims it is real, and every damn thing he writes is stolen from others. There is a category of good historical fiction, but then there are the criminals like Philbrick and Ambrose. The book by T. J. Stiles is very good, the best and most honest assessment of George Custer, supported by outstanding endnotes. If you want a lesson of the value and efficacy of notes, check out the Stiles book: the man is a pro. In the entire book, I found only a single incident where he was at a loss to justify an opinion. Best wishes, Fred. I knew the tittle but not that Stiles was the author. If it`s close to his book about Vanderbilt, it`s a must read. I`ll be sure to add it to my neverending shortlist of books. Geir |
|
