fz1
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by fz1 on Feb 17, 2011 20:55:30 GMT -6
Welcome Fz1. It is always a pleasure to have an intelligent, literate expert on the battle to come along and help dumb guys like me about the battle. It appears from your posts that you have the battle all figured out with a great degree of certainty. As you know, the devil is in the details and to make the profound pronouncements you have made require a great knowledge of the details. More knowledge than I have, that's for sure. I hope you are here to stay and help educate us with the details. Seems like we have had a rash of battle know-it-alls who come in on the couple boards I go to who post for 2 or 3 weeks or months with profound conclusions relegating everyones elses' opinions and theories as crap and being twisted. When pressed for details regarding their own conclusions and theories and why other theories are bunk, they falter and then are gone from the boards. It appears to me from your posts that you are a bonafide expert and not one of those who hit and make a few arguments and then run. Maybe you can help us out on a couple things: 1. We've been discussing Martini meeting Boston Custer or not. What is your thought on this? 2. I have a relative who died with Keogh's I troop. It would be nice if you could detail I company's movements after they left Reno/Ash Creek until he ended up in that swale. I've never understood how they moved around that day so they ended up where they did. When was Keogh killed in relation to those on LSH and Calhoun Hill? Thanks. bc Thank you bc. I don't consider myself an expert,like you. I am just interested in the battle. Haven't read re Martini and Boston,I think they met on the trail. The other posters,you mention, probably did not stay because of the supercilious attitude of some of this boards members towards new members. What do you think? Sorry for your loss,Hoss.....,but I'm sure you know more of your relative's movements with Keogh, better than I. As I recall, Keogh was wounded,then killed, near Calhoun Hill. |
|
fz1
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by fz1 on Feb 17, 2011 21:21:29 GMT -6
I answered;You didn't hear. Custer has indians encroaching from multile flanks and has less ability to move than does Benteen who has,at that time, yet to encounter any indians,anywhere. So,again,Benteen has more freedom of movemet than Custer. Were YOU required to choose Custer's or Benteen's position on the field,which would you choose? Thanks for information Fz1. It would sure help if you could tell me which flanks that Gall, Crazy Horse, Lame White Man, and Two Moons approached from. Would also like to know if Custer was flanked after returning from Ford B or Ford D or both? And how did Co. E end up in Deep Ravine? Thanks. bc But you already know this,don't you? The fact is Custer was flanked by the indians. Now is that simple statement right or wrong,in your opinion? Benteen was not in contact with indians when he received Custer's order,was he? Is that statement right or wrong,in your opinion? Come,on! You can answer those simple questions,cant'you? You had a relative in the battle. You're not gonna run away like he did,are you? |
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Feb 17, 2011 22:08:03 GMT -6
You had a relative in the battle. You're not as afraid as he was,are you? Fz1, That kind of statement is uncalled for, and not appreciated by anyone. Dan |
|
fz1
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by fz1 on Feb 17, 2011 22:25:21 GMT -6
You had a relative in the battle. You're not as afraid as he was,are you? Fz1, That kind of statement is uncalled for, and not appreciated by anyone. Dan Nor were the "statements",as you call them, that were made to me. Don't swing on me;I swing back. |
|
fz1
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by fz1 on Feb 18, 2011 1:43:19 GMT -6
Well,boys. I've been invited to join a larger,and,dare I say,better forum. So this will be my last post. I do hope you will enjoy talking to yourselves
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 18, 2011 2:41:34 GMT -6
fz1,
Your problems here were all self inflicted. You started out here smug and arrogant. You were using assumptions about the battle and got angry when folks started throwing facts at you.
Then you turned troll and started a flame war.
As a new person, why didn't you ask a question? You might be surprised at what a different response you would get. A two way conversation gets you much better mileage.
On cable news, they discuss an issue by getting together extremists from two sides. They use volume instead of logic, cut each other off, are rude, repeat their own sound bite over and over, and ignore whatever points the other sides make. Evidently this sells ads.
This same technique is all over the internet. I guess it feeds the egos of the authors. But it does not serve the interest of a true discussion. You can not learn with all emotion and no reason.
You could have had a better experience here.
But you, and you alone, chose not to.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 18, 2011 6:15:01 GMT -6
Look,Hoss. I'm sorry you're an embittered person,but that's not my fault. If you don't think "most" of the casualties occurred in the last 20 minutes of the battle,fine. If you wish to discuss it,fine. You know where to find me. I don't feel embittered! Is it something I said? And I do wish to discuss it, but you have not answered any of my questions.... I feel ignored, let down, and now you're discouraging me. Golly gee! And if you leave... oh, dear... I don't know where to find you! Would you mind very much if I don't try very hard? Well,boys. I've been invited to join a larger,and,dare I say,better forum. So this will be my last post. I do hope you will enjoy talking to yourselves no less! Yikes! That has never happened to me! I feel slighted. Just my opinion, mind you, but this guy "fz1" is one of the real idiots I have seen anywhere. What a blow-hard jerk. I really do hope he is gone... why do I doubt it...? [By the way... I notice he hasn't "deleted"... !] Best wishes, Embittered Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 18, 2011 6:53:26 GMT -6
Well,boys. I've been invited to join a larger,and,dare I say,better forum. So this will be my last post. I do hope you will enjoy talking to yourselves Typical hit and run with no substance. A fz1 in the pan. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 18, 2011 7:52:42 GMT -6
Ranger,
Just another gasbag with nothing to say but a stupid opinion backed by squat. Darkcloud doesn't even waste his drool on clowns like this. I, however, can't seem to let it pass without contributing a little gas of my own. Hic!
Hope you are doing well down there; stay safe my friend.
Best wishes,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 18, 2011 10:47:24 GMT -6
Good posts Dan, William, AZ, and Fred. I thought William's post was very well crafted. Couldn't have said it better myself. Fz1 just came on like gangbusters but I couldn't figure out what point he was trying to make except what was obvious. He was answering his own questions as he had already decided what the facts were when he asked. His age was listed as 63 but his behavior was rather juvenile. If he wanted to bash Benteen and Custer then there was a better way to do it than that. Conz always has the Reno & Benteen bashing machine running over on the other board rehashing the Martini note and Reno drinking for the gazillionth time.
I can't figure out why someone would be so smug and arrogant about something if they don't have the knowledge to back it up. Is there a bigger and better LBH battle forum that also gives invites to the smug and arrogant?
(start of rant) William brought up an interesting corollary with the cable news. I am a news junkie and have traveled around the world. I always enjoyed picking up the news from the London International Herald Tribune or the BBC when I was overseas. Then Turner started CNN and it carried national and international news all the time and there was an international channel that was interesting when I could see it. Used to have Headline News running in the background for up to date news. Then MSNBC and Fox News began this confrontational news lining up pundits squaring off against each other lead by the the likes of Olbermann and O'Reilly. Then CNN decided to follow suit. Now if there is some type of hurricane, earthquake, or other world disaster and newsworthy item such as an oil spill, they hardly cover anything because they are too busy with some so called republican and democratic experts arguing over nothing.
I can't find a good source for news on the internet. I've had msnbc.com as my home page for years. But all it's news seems to be the posting of AP articles. Same for CNN. It's hard to find original and up to date news. For Iraq war coverage I went to Reuters. But now they seem to be in the same mode as the others. (end of rant)
bc
|
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 18, 2011 10:48:18 GMT -6
Good posts Dan, William, AZ, and Fred. I thought William's post was very well crafted. Couldn't have said it better myself. Fz1 just came on like gangbusters but I couldn't figure out what point he was trying to make except what was obvious. He was answering his own questions as he had already decided what the facts were when he asked. His age was listed as 63 but his behavior was rather juvenile. If he wanted to bash Benteen and Custer then there was a better way to do it than that. Conz always has the Reno & Benteen bashing machine running over on the other board rehashing the Martini note and Reno drinking for the gazillionth time.
I can't figure out why someone would be so smug and arrogant about something if they don't have the knowledge to back it up. Is there a bigger and better LBH battle forum that also gives invites to the smug and arrogant?
(start of rant) William brought up an interesting corollary with the cable news. I am a news junkie and have traveled around the world. I always enjoyed picking up the news from the London International Herald Tribune or the BBC when I was overseas. Then Turner started CNN and it carried national and international news all the time and there was an international channel that was interesting when I could see it. Used to have Headline News running in the background for up to date news. Then MSNBC and Fox News began this confrontational news lining up pundits squaring off against each other lead by the the likes of Olbermann and O'Reilly. Then CNN decided to follow suit. Now if there is some type of hurricane, earthquake, or other world disaster and newsworthy item such as an oil spill, they hardly cover anything because they are too busy with some so called republican and democratic experts arguing over nothing.
I can't find a good source for news on the internet. I've had msnbc.com as my home page for years. But all it's news seems to be the posting of AP articles. Same for CNN. It's hard to find original and up to date news. For Iraq war coverage I went to Reuters. But now they seem to be in the same mode as the others. (end of rant)
bc
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 18, 2011 11:22:53 GMT -6
BC,
To be honest with you, they are all a bunch of bunk. I have been a New York Times junkie since I was a teenager in the mid-fifties, and I still find that the best source of news, and to be very honest with you, the most unbiased of them all. What most of these conservative or far liberal lunkheads don't want people to know-- or don't know themselves-- is that the Times almost always follows a reported story with an analysis. In many instances it is that analysis that Tea Party-ers, Bill O'Reilly, that other jerk on Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, and their ilk scream about-- and do not tell the great unwashed-- that appears to be on the left-wing side.
Make no bones about it, the Times is a liberal paper... their editorials prove the point; but they are far, far from one-sided. Personally, I am a Republican-- who hasn't voted that way in years!-- and people like David Brooks are the ones who are carrying my banner nowadays. He is brilliant, savvy, reasonable, thoughtful, and bi-partisan when it is needed. He is not far from George Will and just to the left of William F. Buckley. There are others like Brooks at the Times and it is people like that who make the newspaper so much better than anything else out there. In my opinion, of course.
As for this other buffoon, "fz1," good riddance, though I doubt it. You have so many good people who enjoy haunting these boards, people like "ober" and "sfchemist," but they some how get drowned out by the flakes who defecate... er... pontificate conclusions with no substance. They make a mockery of the whole thing, and as much as I hate to say it, Conz is no better.
Anyway, I would suspect that you could hold your breath long enough for this jerk to reappear.
Best wishes,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 18, 2011 18:03:14 GMT -6
I've picked up the Times a few times. But around here the Sunday edition shows up at the stands on Saturday so it can't be too up to date. Just more than I want to read. There was a time back in the day when it was a pleasure to get the Sunday paper and spend part of the day reading it. Nowadays they have taken all those interesting sections like the garden section and plugged them into another day's paper. And now that they have cut out half the comics in the comic section and made the others so small you need reading glasses, the comics aren't any fun. One of my remaining life's goals is to read a Garfield strip and maybe crack a smile. I'll probably die never achieving that goal. Now I'll probably get flamed by someone who rolls on the floor laughing at Garfield. Had a roommate one time who cracked up at every joke watching Hee-Haw when it first came out and there was me not even cracking a smile. Johnny Carson, Dean Martin, Laugh-in, and others were more my style.
I don't read the editorials though nor listen to commentators. Believe it or not, I would listen to the Boulder Lout if it came in around here. I think we get KOA at night on AM. I've read some of his stuff and he makes it interesting. The voice doesn't match the face on the avatar or his writing. It needs Jeff Bridges' voice.
We joined the service to help preserve the constitution and part of that is free speech. We get what we bargained for. Guess I'd better quit before I get called foolish. Maybe the way to start with new posters is to find out what their present theory is and then find the common and uncommon ground to discuss. Particularly the ones that begin with a barrage but don't ask a question with a point.
bc
|
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Feb 19, 2011 19:42:55 GMT -6
Gosh, I didn't realize I was supposed to be issuing invitations. I just built these boards in 2004 and people came.
bc, I am with you 100% about CNN Headline News. I used to keep it in the background also -- at least until the repetition drove me nuts. I don't know of any TV/cable station that has as-it-happens news now except during the work day and even those shows are heavily scripted (unless there's a car chase in LA). Turner had a great idea that's been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
Don't even get me started about our local paper. The big story today was that we have fog.
|
|
