|
Post by clw on Sept 4, 2008 6:55:10 GMT -6
Personally, I am wondering what has gotten into you. Normally you are somewhat reasonable if sarcastic but this bit about Keogh and Jim's book reminds me too much of a vendetta or even worse, a crusade. Bluntly speaking, it is too over the top to entertain, unless bullying is considered entertainment in Colorado. Exactly. And it's pointless, unless you're of the school that repeating a point often enough will brow beat the reader into agreement. Debate is worthless when it becomes destructive. I'm disappointed in Elisabeth, but I can't really blame her for being sick and tired of the battle. I am and I'm not even a participant.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 4, 2008 9:03:42 GMT -6
There is no contradiction. I stated everyone discussed was a mercenary before you did. The difference is that there is an ethical thread in those that fight for England, France, and then the United States after Zimmerman's missive drove us in. There is no ethical thread that unites fighting for the Vatican and the US. None. Zippo. There are those who fight for a cause who receive compensation to be able to continue - and I surely count those who fought for the Allies as such - and there are those who fight for compensation who adjust their estimation of the cause in pursuit of that goal.
I don't know - and nobody does - what Keogh's ethical compass swing was, but there is solid reason to hold in suspension this ridiculously giddy fluff job on the guy because of that dichotomy.
What none of you admit is your're merely defending a friend or someone you want to have as a friend without having to defend his work, which most are understandably loathe to do. This is because you/they haven't actually read it, or have, perhaps partially, and know its weaknesses, or because they aren't up to it.
You say I'm on a bitter old man crusade against a helpless young author of merit, but I can say - and prove - that there was, on this board, a definite crusade to praise his book and sell it when people hadn't read it, missed all the easy errors that bespeak anything but scholarship, and in fact is an illustrative example of the sort of thing we're supposedly against. Do you deny that? Don't. It's all still up.
I actually read it all, with the notes. It is not intellectually honest, it had an agenda, and it was targetted towards the emerging new Custer Buffs. It's pedestrian writing, a great vice given the subject and that SOTMS exists. That I responded to it, and ask those who claimed its virtues to put up or shut up, isn't prejudicial bullying.
You and Elizabeth are friends, etc., but I said before, and I say again, you're going to agree with me when you read it. It will be painful - more so, after this tantrum - but I'm looking forward to it, especially when you glumly shut the book during another blowout of the Chiefs, preferably by Denver, and the beauties of a Kansan winter ("Over 42 Kaw words for monotonous, grey, drizzly day") sink in, and you have to admit it.
I can wait.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Sept 4, 2008 15:15:21 GMT -6
Just wanted to add....
Rarely have I been as impressed with anyone’s detailed knowledge of the times and people surrounding the Custers' as I have with Elisabeth's. This board is blessed with a higher than normal density of knowledgeable people than every other one out there. What I’ve had in the way of information to share has been of no value to her - I’m certain. But I have to say that she has been most generous in sharing with all here, and me at times through personal messages. Always helpful and constructive even in her criticisms.
A lady of real class and graciousness, and one not aloof and lacking in a sense of humor. I feel privileged to have had any association with her on this board, and hope that she is merely on a sabbatical of sorts; otherwise, I see no way to replace her.
Elisabeth, thank you for everything.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by clw on Sept 4, 2008 18:09:33 GMT -6
Hear, hear Michael. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Sept 4, 2008 20:11:34 GMT -6
Ditto!
I cringe when I think of all the questions I've asked her and all the times I've asked her to answer questions posed by website visitors. She always answered me and strangers with great charm. The woman is a saint.
I am hopeful she will return to us because we will not be the same without her. The boards can be tedious. People rub us the wrong way, and we can only rehash the same stuff so many times. We all need a break from time to time, and she is not the first to take a well deserved breather. I will look forward to her welcome return. I hope it is soon.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 11, 2008 15:56:35 GMT -6
Got an email from Jim the other day and here are the highlights:
1) On the next edition (paperback) he is going to remove the TC mutilation (eyes popped out) reference as he can't find his source anywhere. 2) Likewise, the CH reference re: the Fetterman fight. This time his sources conflict with other, perhaps more reliable ones so rather than arbitrarily take sides, out it goes. 3) Correct his FUBAR regarding the location of Custer's chest wound on one description.
Any other corrections/clarifications anyone wants, send them over to me and I'll forward to Jim who sincerely wants inaccuracies in the book removed. I am not talking about differences of opinions but factual errors.
Later,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 11, 2008 17:05:36 GMT -6
There is no correct answer about the sides for the wounds. Ryan, who buried him, says the right, others the left. One said the head wound bled down the face into the mouth and wasn't the fatal one, also at odds with the majority. There is no "correct" answer, so why pretend there is? Especially given its overpowering unimportance.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 12, 2008 1:32:48 GMT -6
There is no correct answer about the sides for the wounds. Ryan, who buried him, says the right, others the left. One said the head wound bled down the face into the mouth and wasn't the fatal one, also at odds with the majority. There is no "correct" answer, so why pretend there is? Especially given its overpowering unimportance. Just to give persons such as you something to complain about. Custer Is Still Dead You Dummies!CISDYD....oops, Billy
|
|
|
Post by First Sergeant on Jan 13, 2010 9:42:50 GMT -6
Good morning all, I just finished reading "Terrible Glory" and enjoyed it. As many have already commented, it read like a novel, which made it flow so much better (IMHO). The "facts" seem to be consistent with some other books I have read, no revelations or new data, so wasn't shocked by anything he wrote. Despite the interesting comments on this site, as well as the other site, I would recommend this book to those new to the field and afraid to get involved in the more research-heavy tomes.
|
|