lc
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by lc on Nov 4, 2007 23:13:27 GMT -6
After reading a thread on this site discussing Frederick Benteen, I created an account to rectify what was absolute fiction and speculation about the Captain. I deal in profiling people as in FBI type profiling in psychological realms to understand who they are. The link here is to Benteen's first account letter of the battle and if people will read it some very troubling things jump out. www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/frederick_beneen_little_big_horn.htmlI ask readers to put themselves after a 9 11 type event where you worked with 300 people who had just been slaughtered telling what you experienced to a spouse. In Benteen's letter, his focus is without emotion. He speaks of none of these men nor their families loss. He is about as computer analytical a non human could be. Three things jump out. 1, Benteen acts as if he were in command. 2, Benteen coolly talks about promotions in how these people's deaths will benefit them. 3, Benteen, coldly includes the "bring packs" order with instructions it will be "a matter of interest" as in value. 4, Benteen literally lies twice. His first lie is that Custer's command cheered and alerted the Indian camp from 4 miles away. High Plains contours and air in June in tests show cars, dogs barking etc... can only be heard on premium conditions at 2 miles, and that, faintly. Benteen is well aware of sound travel as that is how an army survives. His second lie which is astounding is he blames Custer for attacking the Indian camp stating "if Custer had waited Gibbons and Terry's commands to come up the camp would have been surrounded. Benteen knew very well that the Indians were not going to wait 2 days for the commands to come up as they would have immediately fled as they always did. Benteen also knew that the 7th Cavalry was the hammer in the operation meant to flush the Indians into the anvil of Terry and Gibbons who were to crush them. There are no excuses in this as Benteen knows very well military protocols as the 7th had been operational from the Washita to the Yellowstone in the same exact operations. In this entire letter, Benteen exhibits no more emotion than if 300 ants had been stepped upon. This in a profile is astounding as in actual recordings the entire 7th Cavalry officer corp was known to associate intimately with each other on social levels. As stated, if one places themselves on normal work levels with people one associates with there would be extreme emotion even in military circles in modern Iraq warfare over people one knows have died, yet Benteen expresses not one sympathy for any of the dead or one thought of the wives of these officers who Benteen knew very well. While researching other subjects, I came across the personal journal of Col. Richard Irving Dodge and a telling event comes out in Dodge's 1875 Black Hills Expedition in Capt. Benteen shows up with part of the 7th Cavalry being dispatched by Gen. Terry to the Black Hills. One must understand in Dodge's profile, that he is the consumate gentleman. He is renowned by the people of that region as one of the greatest citizens and a great judge of character. Dodge has his camp set up and is superior officer. Protocol indicates that Benteen should pay a courtesy call on Dodge, but Benteen ignores him. What follows in Dodge's journal is then his hurt feelings, but it expresses Benteen as a soldier and a human. Dodge watches Benteen and sees he places his command on a hill, exposed to scorching sun and heat. Benteen never bothers to make the camp comfortable (shade awnings). The soldiers are forced to haul water from a stream hundreds of yards away. The horses of course are also exposed to the same Dakota heat, wind and extremes. In personal letters, both Dodge and Custer are benevolent gentlemen quite well favored by their superiors in Gen. Crook, Gen. Sherman and Gen. Sheridan. Both are noted of some fame and of the upper class in America and in both cases Frederick Benteen is shown to go out of his way to be rude and treat superior officers of note with disdain starting a "feud" that both officers simply let go. Too many times fans of Benteen or detractors of Gen. Custer point to the the good soldier, Capt. Benteen was in battle as an excuse for his actual profile. In family life, Benteen expresses affection for his immediate family, but for all others in life, especially those who God has shown fame upon he exhibits pettiness and what amounts to very low self esteem in antagonizing people who have done nothing to the man. This in research profling of Benteen's character or lack there of is more than speculation about the Little Big Horn battles. It weighs heavily on the personal and gives clues to why Gen. Nelson Appleton Miles laid blame on Benteen for what happened at the battle and why the heirachy of military officers made certain that both Benteen and Reno were punished eventually. Even Reno's court martial records record another facet of Benteen which historians in their zeal to blame Custer fail to examine. Reno was charged with basically stalking a married woman with sexual harrassment. In profiling, Reno literally lost it at the Battle of the Little Big Horn in being coward. He simply was not up to the task. He was given command and reacted in ways to destroy his career and vent upon his need to be accepted. This is what triggered the stalking and eratic behavior as he was traumatized and unbalanced knowing in his failure the slaughter occurred. It was at this venture in crime that the facet of Benteen comes out. Reno approaches Benteen to enlist him to lie about the crime and get him off. Benteen refuses to do this, but in profiling it is reasonable he is not doing this out of character but out of his old animosity "to those above him". What is telling is Reno in this in Reno approaches Benteen certain he can get him to lie in covering up what happened. Out of all the officers of the 7th, Reno chooses Benteen.......not out of the blue, but in police detection logistics because Reno knows that Benteen before lied and covered up an event to save Reno. That event was the Little Big Horn. I will not conjecture what Benteen and Reno lied about to cover up for each other as that is not the study here. What is the study is Benteen in on the record statements has been shown lying and being counted on by Reno later to lie again. Frederick Benteen can still be a loving family man and a capable battle soldier, but Frederick Benteen can also be a vindictive, lying, rude and about as unfeeling as a modern terrorist speaking 9 11 dead. It is past time that facts and not feelings weigh in the balance of the what and the who Frederick Benteen is. For most people his letter 8 days after the battles, reveal a man who is not concerned at all about anyone including protecting his wife from the horrid details. (Historical letters of the period show other military officers would never discuss mayhem nor the condition of dead bodies "as women were considered too delicate to handle such things.) All of this is a psychological disconnect which is a psychopathy very troubling. One either feels for those you know or one is concerned about promotions. Frederick Benteen is the latter.
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Nov 5, 2007 0:21:31 GMT -6
re your last paragraph -
I think Benteen knew his wife was made of stronger stuff. He seems to have never pulled back on telling her anything.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 5, 2007 2:57:23 GMT -6
Libbie Custer has an entire chapter on the subject of officers' attitudes to promotions in her Following the Guidon. Benteen was far from unique in taking an interest under such circumstances. One brief quote: "I ... could not become accustomed to the manner in which news of the death of an officer at some other post was met. The officers said, if they liked him, 'Poor fellow! I'm sorry he's gone'; but the inevitable question that followed was, 'Whom will it promote?' The Army Register was at once in requisition, and the file looked up." In this case, though, Benteen's reference to promotions is one of disgust: that officers have been killed in battle, and three "coffee-coolers" get exalted as a result.
His letters to his wife treat her as an equal. Like Terry's letters to his sister, and Edgerly's July 4th letter to his own wife, they credit her with the intelligence to understand and want to know the details of the battle, complete with maps. Barnitz is pretty explicit in his letters to Jennie, too. Women were pretty robust then; they'd been through the Civil War, after all, and many had seen their own share of horrid sights.
Not strictly true that Benteen shows detestation for "all others in life" outside his own family circle; he quite often speaks affectionately of friends both from civilian life and within the 7th Cavalry. In his letters to D. F. Barry, for instance, he shows real fondness and concern for Tom McDougall. (And fondness for Barry, for that matter.)
It's an interesting profile you draw, but I think excessively harsh.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 5, 2007 6:56:54 GMT -6
lc--
I will address this in more detail a little later, but I will tell you right off the bat, your assumptions and your purported Benteen "lies" are built on quicksand. I don't know where you get your information or how much you know about this battle and its attendant events, but to assume a "hammer and anvil" approach is both gratuitous and presumptuous, especially when you include the statement about Indians scattering.
As I said, I'll join this fray shortly, but I'll give you a little advice. Tone down the rhetoric, my friend, or you'll be eaten alive on this board, and not specifically by me, either. You need more accurate "facts" than what you have shown (actually, "facts" aren't facts unless they are accurate now, are they?) and I think you may need a better understanding of the 19th-century mentality. Comparing Fred Benteen's "persona" to 21st-century crime-fighting psychological demographics is like asking who is and who would have been the greatest home run hitter: Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, or Jim Thorpe.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 5, 2007 9:39:31 GMT -6
Much to everyone's chagrin, I'm back. Here goes.
lc—
Let’s get to it. You ask people to put themselves into a “9/11-type event.” That is an impossibility. I was not there, but I worked there and my children and I (who both worked for me) were there during the first bombing. I am, however, a Vietnam combat veteran who saw just enough dying to be able to assure people combat is not where you want to be. I saw death dispassionately and I saw it close-up and somewhat personal, i.e., college friends, plus soldiers who were under my command… in some cases, ol' “What’s His Name.” What little I saw pales in comparison to what Fred Benteen saw during his Civil War service and his several years on the American frontier. You may be in your forties (combined?) and you may work for or do work for the FBI, but unless you have experienced severe and continuous combat, your work must always contain the caveat, “maybe.” I can fully assure you, a man becomes inured to the death around him. He becomes that way through constant exposure and maybe some people a little earlier than others by dint of their forceful personalities. Unfortunately for my soul, I was one of the latter. It became easy to shrug off. I’ll even provide you with a little sordid example. On one of the last operations I was on, we were receiving incoming mortar fire. One of my lieutenants jumped up, woke me, and scrambled for the bunker. He tried to get me to come along. I went back to sleep. It no longer fazed me. That morning, I watched as they placed the mangled body of the battalion S-1 in a body bag. He was a friend.
Is my focus here without emotion?
Now, your points. Benteen was in command; certainly once he arrived on Reno Hill. Make no mistake about it; Reno knew it and welcomed it. Maybe Congress never thought a captain might supercede a major, but that, in effect, was what happened. People recognized it at the time, they recognized it later, they recognize it today, and it saved the command. Reno knew it, and if you doubt that, you know or understand little of that battle. I find nothing wrong in that particular situation. A life and death struggle and the “senior” man in experience and emotion took command, without embarrassing or denigrating his titular superior. If he comes across a little egocentric in his personal letters, so be it. I doubt he ever planned on them becoming public. When’s the last time you didn’t take the opportunity to pat yourself on the back?
Second. I do not believe Fred Benteen was what these modern-day, flatulent, psycho-babblers call a “Type-A” personality. All you have to do is look at a picture of him with that pipe in his mouth and add to that, known descriptions of his personality: he “... governed mainly by suggestion” [Hammer]; and that he was both kind and humorous, even while commanding with an “iron hand.” So what does all that mean? Well, you do not have to be some ranting and raving “Type-A’er” to get your point across and I do not see the social disapproval (read, hypocrisy) or breast-beating we all go through over deaths, while secretly trying to figure how best to use all this for our own advancement. Give me a break! If you haven’t experienced it or haven’t done it, you are either deluding yourself (read, lie) or you live in a cocoon. (Close enough, right?)
Third: the “note,” the simple, overblown, over-analyzed, ridiculously-discussed “note.” So what? It was “a matter of interest,” but of dubious value. I don’t get your point.
Fourth. Your statement that Benteen “lies twice,” is both fatuous and self-serving and shows a predisposition—rather than a clinical dispassion—toward prejudice. Don’t give me this nonsense about Great Plains contours and air. It is a known fact (as opposed to an unknown supposition) that those men cheered as they galloped down Reno/Ash Creek. If Benteen could hear it, why couldn’t Indians-- who were known to be in, and were seen in, Reno/Ash Creek valley-- have heard it, as well? Even semi-deaf Edward Settle Godfrey claimed to have heard firing while he was at the morass and certainly others did as well—or did they all lie, too? The morass was close to five miles from the LBH River and maybe as far as seven miles from the Reno action. And this was not yet the volley firing. Do you mean to tell me you can hear rifles firing seven miles away, across hill-and-dale, but you cannot hear 350 men charging down an enclosed valley, cheering a couple of miles away? When and where were those “tests” made? What was the pollution level? How about the temperature and humidity levels? How were the contours broken by houses and barns and animals and land reclamation or removal projects, by train lines and Interstates? It doesn’t wash, “lc,” not by a long shot, so those tests are problematic, at best, as far as I’m concerned. As for Benteen knowing about “sound travel” being “how an army survives,” then what does that say for Custer allowing the cheering? How about the thunk-thunk, clank-clank of the Gatling guns Reno dragged along with him on his scout? How about the 151 wagons and 1,700 horses and braying mules Terry dragged along with him when he entered the Davis Creek valley (the one that led to the Little Missouri river), where he expected to run into ol’ Sitting Bull? I think you over-state that a bit and to claim it was a lie by Benteen borders on the ludicrous.
The second claim of a lie boggles my mind. You are assuming the Indians even knew the troops were there and were preparing to scatter. Several Cheyenne warriors knew of the proximity of the column, but never told the Sioux, certainly not in time to do anything about it. When Crook got within miles of that Indian camp on the Rosebud, he was attacked. Do you think for one moment those Indians knew Custer was near? James Willert, in his book, Little Big Horn Diary, claimed the Indians screwed-up royally by hauling in their scouts when they saw the Gibbon column heading down the Yellowstone. They never expected Gibbon to turn, and to turn with quadruple the number of men he headed downriver with. That and the fact the Indians had just moved to that location the day before and probably wouldn’t have moved again for another day or two, and even then, they would have been moving downstream toward Terry’s converging column. And don’t use “hammer and anvil” like it was an accepted 1876-phrase or like that was “the plan,” because it wasn’t. Terry was hoping to use his force as a blocking force, “hoping” being the key word there. Custer had supplies enough to keep him out a couple of weeks and Terry, Gibbon, and Custer were all expecting the Indians to be heading up-valley, not down. Terry’s position was more fortuitous than planned, more hopeful than realistic.
The rest of your post is nothing but rambling nonsense and it smells and looks like Swiss cheese to me. Don’t classify Benteen’s keeping men in the sun with Custer’s swift benevolence in treating deserters or with poor Dodge’s damaged feelings. Tut-tut! As for Nelson Miles, that’s like the butcher complaining about the dogcatcher. Go take a quick look and see how many Indians that bum slaughtered when they were trying to surrender. But I guess that’s okay; they were mere savages—sauvages? As for the social mores of the times, how about the Custer clique? I don’t know about you or what your military background is like, but I rather think I might resent it a bit to see my commanding officer haul around his family on a serious military operation. Quit condemning a man because he resents life, because his ethics were high enough to flout his father’s prejudices, because he treated his wife like an equal, because she was maybe the only thing that really mattered to him, and because he had the guts to face the truth and recognize a fool for the stripes he wore.
Quite frankly, your post is bombastic and asinine, and your “evidence” contrived, one-sided, without factual basis, and thoroughly juvenile. And if you work for or do work for the FBI, then it’s no wonder we have been so successful in tracking down Mr. Bin-Laden. It looks very much to me like he and Zawahari will out-last President George W. Custer and the current head of the Bureau. Re-think, pal.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by erkki on Nov 5, 2007 9:58:50 GMT -6
After reading a thread on this site discussing Frederick Benteen, I created an account to rectify what was absolute fiction and speculation about the Captain. I deal in profiling people as in FBI type profiling in psychological realms to understand who they are. It is past time that facts and not feelings weigh in the balance of the what and the who Frederick Benteen is. For most people his letter 8 days after the battles, reveal a man who is not concerned at all about anyone including protecting his wife from the horrid details. Officer Krupke, you're really a square; This boy don't need a judge, he needs an analyst's care! It's just his neurosis that oughta be curbed. He's psychologic'ly disturbed! It ain't just a question of misunderstood; Deep down inside him, he's no good! We're no good, we're no good! We're no earthly good, Like the best of us is no damn good! The trouble is he's crazy. The trouble is he drinks. The trouble is he's lazy. The trouble is he stinks. A nineteenth century cavalryman, an incomparable field officer, courageous, daring, competent, embittered, vindictive...a human being--not the least tragic of all the tragic figures on this field.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 5, 2007 10:03:09 GMT -6
I've grown to love people who announce their presence by declaring their self-estimated skills and backgrounds (with implications if not pronouncements they have vast combat, police, secret Indian spiritual experience denied other, lesser mortals) that make them so extraordinarily qualified to publicly comment on th LBH. They rarely declare, like conz, that you're to be awed and proud to interact with them, but they all provide the sure evidence in their first posts the blissful ignorance that defines a brand new tether ball.
It's especially entertaining when they're just a new User ID of a former participant, or someone propped up as a stalking horse by a former participant.
If lc cannot see a distinction between civvies attacked out of the blue and professional military men, because he damns Benteen for not acting like a WTC escapee, there's nothing for it. Whatever profile experience is referenced, it must involve a shadow on a screen, tracing, and coloring in later.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 5, 2007 10:42:36 GMT -6
I've grown to love people who announce their presence by... God, I love it! Bingo... Amen... Adieu! I knew I could depend on you. See? We're brothers at heart. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Nov 5, 2007 19:33:52 GMT -6
I've grown to love people who announce their presence by... God, I love it! Bingo... Amen... Adieu! I knew I could depend on you. See? We're brothers at heart. Best wishes, Fred. My dear friend Fred. I fear you have been doing altogether too much drinking from DC's canteen lately. I rather agree with lc in his assessment that old man Benteen was a cantankerous malcontent who played with the truth whenever it suited his need to. lc might be off the mark with the old "hammer and anvil" strategy I'll grant you, however, he failed to notice another blatant lie in Benteen's letter when he makes mention of Weir's company being " sent out to communicate with Custer".....sure he was sent out! sent out by who, we might ask? Oh, yes, sent out by himself, of course! Not really a lie, but a classic Benteen obfuscation, along with his nonsense about traveling 10 miles on his scout in the hills, then 6 or 7 more miles to the morass, then another 5 or 6 miles to the village! That would total up to between 21 to 23 miles supposedly traveled by our illustrious Benteen, who of course, never would stoop to telling a lie, not even a little white one! And just for the record, Benteen was not referring to Custer's men cheering while they were marching along Ash Creek. He was referring to their cheering while on the bluffs. And Benteen did not hear this himself, he learned of it from Martini. Benteen was claiming that this cheering led the Indians to expect Custer's attack on their village 4 miles further to the north (not at MTF). Also, your insinuation about Godfrey being mistaken about hearing rifle fire from the morass is sustainable only if we are all agreed that the location of the morass is indeed 5 or 6 miles from the lbh valley. However, this location is not in full agreement by all battlefield researchers. Some are of the opinion that the correct morass location is actually about 2 1/2 miles from the ford A (this would be the Hartung Morass). If the latter is the correct location, then Mr. Godfrey's hearing might not be in question after all. Now when are you coming back to NYC? rch and I will have our work cut out to detox you from the contents of DC's homemade mash.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Nov 5, 2007 22:22:28 GMT -6
Haven't you idiots realized that Benteen gave GAC his highest compliment in, to paraphrase, his belief that GAC could fight his way out and retreat northward? Benteen was an experienced Plains Indian fighter. As a professional, whether he personally liked GAC or not, he recognized a commander who could fight his way out by either luck, tactics, or audacity. I would think that Benteen would have transferred out years ago if he was not assured that GAC was not a coffee-cooler.
Benteen was not the problem. GAC was the problem in that he did not communicate with his subordinates, provide maximum force at the point of attack, and was the field commander of the regiment which lost 210+ men killed in action.
Rank may have it's privileges but it also has it's responsibilities.
The last I will say about the Custer-Cluster.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Nov 5, 2007 22:36:25 GMT -6
Markland
"Haven't you idiots realized that Benteen gave GAC his highest compliment in, to paraphrase, his belief that GAC could fight his way out and retreat northward. Benteen was an experienced Plains Indian fighter. As a professional, whether he personally liked GAC or not, he recognized a commander who could fight his way out by either luck, tactics, or audacity. I would think that Benteen would have transferred out years ago if he was not assured that GAC was not a coffee-cooler."
By gosh, by golly and by carbonate of soda, you've got it! YES!
(Benteen was not above managing the truth on occasion. But, like Custer, he told the truth as he saw it)
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Nov 6, 2007 7:42:09 GMT -6
<he failed to notice another blatant lie in Benteen's letter when he makes mention of Weir's company being "sent out to communicate with Custer">
It's possible Benteen was covering for Weir. Afterall Weir left on his own, without orders jeopardizing the entire command, and could have been brought up on charges.
And when we are talking about distances . . . are we talking a straight line or having to navigate around hills, streams, rough areas, etc.? If we go the roundabout way 5 miles can turn into 10 miles.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 6, 2007 8:31:48 GMT -6
No, no, no, no, Bill. You anti-Benteen guys are just surface-scratching, just brushing aside what you don't want to believe and picking and choosing what fits your picture of the man. You're not going any deeper. You pick on letters he wrote to his wife, you suddenly hold him to rigidly accurate standards with distances, you make no allowances for his decision-making or his ideas of Custer's "plans," or lack thereof. You don't go into what sets him off, why he stayed with the regiment, why he disliked Custer so much. The only thing that's grabbed at is that he didn't go to the boy general's assistance and in that he is condemned. The circumstances are never weighed; it's always Benteen's fault Custer was killed and the man's dislike for Custer is the blame and the reason. And if you want to hold Benteen to the accuracy of his mileage estimates, then you have to hold Varnum responsible with his time estimates; or Doc Porter with his hemming and hawing. They're the same ilk.
Also, I never insinuated about Godfrey and if it came across that way, I'm sorry. I believe Godfrey heard what he said he heard, where he said he heard it. Also, the morass business is utter nonsense and if there is another morass and some researchers think that's the one in question, then they fit Markland's category of "idiots." Please, spare me a second morass. Let's see now, the mules dodged the first one because the water didn't taste good. Benteen's move to Reno Creek-- right near where everyone said the morass was-- was actually farther down the valley, therefore rendering Benteen's mileage estimates more accurate (because of the angle traveled). You're reaching here, Bill, and you're too smart and too experienced in the topography to be roped in to this stupidity.
Now... my second favorite subject: Darkcloud. I know its a joke and hyperbole, but I don't drink from anyone's canteen. That's probably why I get in so much trouble on these boards. All I try to do is to be polite. Darkcloud and I mixed it up early on, but I was mostly to blame for that. Call it hot-headed German temperament. (If you want to call this a public apology, you're free to do so. I'm not above to admitting errors.) Darkcloud and I agree on more than we disagree. I believe he overstates his disdain for the archaeological work done on the battlefield and I believe he is incorrect in his dismissal of certain Indian testimonies, specifically on times versus watches. Other than that, I find myself agreeing with almost everything he puts up here. There was a time when I would read the first three lines of whatever he posted and then go on to something else, but that's changed, as well. Maybe I've grown up, I don't know. Also, I think I'm a lot more into the interest of minutiae than he is, but that's secondary. He pulls no punches, and I like that. I'll walk away rather than battle (much of the time); he doesn't, and I respect him for it. But make no bones about it, I am not his acolyte, and if he feels it necessary to berate, he's picked a worthy opponent. His ice may never melt, but that doesn't mean I can't be civil or agree with him. When the man's right, he's right, and he's right 95% of the time. I wish my number was as high.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 6, 2007 8:36:26 GMT -6
One other thing. I completely agree with Markland's and "alfuso's" assessment of Benteen. Like everything else, however, that too will be merely swept under the rug as irrelevant. After all, Fred Benteen was his man, kowtowing to no one, keeping to himself and his immediate circle, i.e., elitist, and in this day and age-- and country-- of increasingly lowered standards, we cannot have that now, can we?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 6, 2007 9:32:59 GMT -6
Bill--
I'm sorry, I forgot to address the most important issue of all. New York! I am not sure what is happening here. We just put our place on the market, but we are also on another "death-watch" and that may bring us up there... whenever. When it does, we will get together. However, you or Raimondo will have to do some research. Maybe you guys can find a nice little, clean, decent gin-mill, not far from Grand Central-- walking distance-- and we can meet there, have a couple of pops, i.e., gin and tonic!!!!!!!!!, if that is your desire, and it is certainly mine, a bite to eat, and we can re-fight the whole darned thing, once again.
Like I said, I don't know when we will be there and if the immediacy fades a bit (hopefully), then my wife and I are going to head to the Outer Banks for a couple of months. January and February are nice, chilly, people-less months to walk the beach... so I will keep you posted. Remember, now, your obligation. A nice place for "rch" and me... and you, of course, to imbibe.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|