Fred must have written something about a Brit that Kentishman didn't like. The latter considers himself an expert on Brits at LBH.
No, Diane... it's worse!
Let me start this soon-to-be-long-winded post by saying that I have finally gotten home after spending more than six hours in the doctor's office... and I am exhausted.
Then let me thank all you who have come to my defense in this thing. Despite my recent testiness, I like, admire, and respect each and every one of you, without equivocation and reservation. I believe everyone has made a contribution to this whole affair and I have acknowledged several of you in this book... only because you have deserved it.
Diane... you know who this clown is... this "Kentishman" thing and the rest of you would certainly recognize his name, especially if you belonged to the CAGB, an organization I find less and less need to be part of.
The whole thing started off with his e-mail to me, asking me if I was the author, and if so, he would like to hear from me. I responded and made a little joke... followed by the <g> sign-- about Elisabeth (and this person is
not Elisabeth!). He responded with the comment, "I wasn't planning to blame anyone although the buck generally stops with the author." Well, that set me back on my heels, I'll tell you!
He then proceeded to write, "Regrettably there are numerous errors in Section I, some glaring and many less obvious...." He added, "I am writing to you in
strict confidence and the
spirit of goodwill [his emphasis] although once the proverbial 'horse has bolted' shutting the stable door can all too often be little more than academic."
My response-- taken aback as I was-- was still cordial, but firm. His was less so, and the final correspondence was from me... and a lot less cordial than my previous one.
I see I have already broken his self-imposed "strict confidence," but that is of no mind to me, especially since I have not used the blighter's name.
Now... a word of explanation. This guy has written things before, but he is one of those I call a "tear-down." In other words, all he does is criticize, all the while touting his own credentials. He also is a whiner, in that whenever he "corrects" someone, he does so like he has been personally attacked. (And by the way, I have actually quoted him a couple of times in the book.)
For those of you who know, Section I deals with the military, and for those of you who deserve an answer,
all the personal data was obtained mostly from five main sources: Ron Nichols, Vern Smalley, Kenneth Hammer, Lloyd Overfield, and Roger Williams. Everyone was checked against the other and where there were discrepancies, I made a choice, generally opting for the data in Roger Williams' book (less controversy there). So if my personal "stuff", i. e., height, enlistment data, color-of-eyes, birthplace and DOB are wrong, then so, too, are those other five.
But that data was not my objective in the book... it was all the other stuff, the anecdotes, the descriptions by others, the strange little quirks one wouldn't necessarily find in those five main sources. This book was a synergistic effort, a
synthesis, as I like to call it, of the work of so many people who came before me. While it may sound corny, I sort of looked at this as a tribute to those guys who did all that work first. Then of course, I have this imbecile popping up, blithely informing me I have "numerous" and "glaring" errors.
Suddenly, as well, he is an expert on Custer's scouts and some 1,500 Indians who were there, as well as who fought whom, who was at Ford B, and on and on.
And by the way, I have no compunction about posting my final e-mail to this clown.
Just let me know...!Now... to address the people I care about.
Rosebud... I thought I made the "Red Cloud" entry ambivalent enough so that it would not be known for certain if he were there. Donovan (in the text) believed he wasn't and my comment was, "... but this seems to be incorrect." The reason for that comment comes near the end when I say, he was "Surrounded by and surrendered to Crook's command, October 1876." That certainly implies Red Cloud was not at the agency at that time. Also, note the hesitation just above, when I refer to Dickson's comment.
To take this one step further, I need to back up a bit. I have found several typos in the text, as well as a couple of other errors. For example, go to Page 5, left column, second line from the bottom: "siz civilian packers"; should be "six." Go to Page 196, left column... the Benteen entry, second line: the year shows as "1F876," instead of "1876." In the acknowledgments, Ephriam Dickson is referred to as "my late friend." Well... Ephriam is alive and well!!!!
The most egregious error—which will apply to Red Cloud and a few others—is more complicated. Go to Page 2, right column, the very end sentence of the 2nd paragraph, referring to Section III, the section about the Indians. That sentence reads,
Also apparent is the tenuousness of several entries, indicated by the symbol, " ."Notice the open quotes: " ." Well, the Greek letter, Delta: ∆, is missing. Now go to Page 117, the first page of Section III, left column, first sentence of the 2nd paragraph. It reads,
Some notes to remember: all entries marked with the symbol— — are known historic figures, but it is uncertain [emphasized]
if they were at the Little Big Horn. See the dashes? That ∆ symbol was missing from there as well. Then when I checked all the entries that should have had the symbol next to their names, the symbol was missing.
The Red Cloud entry should have had that ∆.The printer screwed up, if you must know, but like the Kentish boor said, the author takes full responsibility. I do, and thus the lengthy explanation.
Only one other error was of any relevance and if anyone wants to know what that was, just PM me.
Once again, I thank all of you for your most kind and generous words and your spirited defense. And Scott Nelson, you are an absolute gem of a friend. I am touched. (No, Scott, not
tetched... touched!) No one could be more blessed with his friends.
Very best wishes to you all,
Fred.