|
Post by justvisiting on May 29, 2012 11:01:32 GMT -6
I don't know who's information is correct in this instance, Fred's or Peter Russell's. What I do know is that it was irresponsible for the Dispatch editors to print such a loaded and biased review without some additional mediating comments (hope I expressed that correctly). If anything, it should have been made clear that Russell's research has turned up some data that differs with Fred's, but that the jury is still out on who is right. I think that there should be a written apology in the next issue of the Dispatch. But that brings up another problem: It will be several months before the next Dispatch. In the meantime, that review will make the rounds. Maybe there should be a policy to allow the author of a book to read the review early and respond if necessary, in the same issue as the review. On Amazon when a book gets trashed (especially for the wrong reason) someone else, including the author, can respond right away, but this is different. Lastly, will one of you knuckleheads go to Amazon and look up Sioux War Dispatches. Marc, that is why I'm responding on their Facebook page. Some members read that in addition to their Dispatch. Is Sioux War Dispatches an extract from your "Newspaper Chronicles of the Indian Wars" or is it a continuation of the 1876 volume? Be good, JV
|
|
|
Post by marcabrams on May 29, 2012 11:11:39 GMT -6
Sioux War Dispatches is the story of the Sioux War as told primarily through contemporary newspapers, particularly dispatches from the various correspondents. It is a narrative, with lots of quotes and extracts, held together by my commentary, and also includes some articles reprinted in full. It is not just a collection of articles. That was the Newspaper Chronicle series. There are a few items that I quote from that were not in the Newspaper Chronicle series. Thanks for asking.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on May 29, 2012 11:19:41 GMT -6
Sioux War Dispatches is the story of the Sioux War as told primarily through contemporary newspapers, particularly dispatches from the various correspondents. It is a narrative, with lots of quotes and extracts, held together by my commentary, and also includes some articles reprinted in full. It is not just a collection of articles. That was the Newspaper Chronicle series. There are a few items that I quote from that were not in the Newspaper Chronicle series. Thanks for asking. Thanks for the quick response. That answered the question I had as I have most of the Chronicles (if not all) and I'll be moseying to Amazon in the next day or so to order it. JV
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 29, 2012 15:25:41 GMT -6
For anybody who knows-- or doesn't know, for that matter-- Marc Abrams' newspaper chronicles is one of the best research works ever done on the old American West. It consists of some 17 or so volumes and the only reason I have not bought the entire set is because of everything I have had going on in the last year or so. I will be buying the entire set, however, and hopefully soon. I have two volumes along with a couple companion books and reading them is like you are there as the writers are viewing the action or the journey. Absolutely fascinating stuff.
Now... for those of you who have responded to this book review thing, just to let you know, back a while we had a similar brou-ha-ha with a guy named "Kentishman." Well, "Kentishman" is Peter Russell.
I would also like to express my sincerest and most humble thanks to every one of you who have come to my defense and support. Some how, some way, this will come back to you in a greater measure of thanks and appreciation. I am privileged to be associated with each of you.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Aug 25, 2012 15:56:10 GMT -6
Fred, just in case you're curious, Mr. Russell has finally appeared on the Facebook Custer Battlefield Historical Association page to rebut my complaints about his review. He immediately throws a straw dog into the mix by asking the general membership how many had read the book, the implication being cover-to-cover.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Kentishman on Dec 9, 2013 4:43:21 GMT -6
I have withdrawn my post to avoid any further irrational comments.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 9, 2013 10:23:46 GMT -6
Considering your history here, and the fact that you trashed Fred, one of the posters here that is truly treasured for his knowledge, efforts, dare I say guts for putting his neck out and being published, and good comradeship over these many years, tell me why I or anyone would wish to visit your website, which you are presently pimping?
Fred does not suffer fools gladly, but next to me he is Tinker Bell in that regard. So if you want to pimp stand on some street corner in Kent, and not show up here every time Fred has a book pending publication.
On the other hand, if you can be fair and respectful of his efforts stay and contribute, and stop blowing your own horn. You do yourself no good service.
PS: What were the irrational comments? Was it my expression of my great respect for Fred's work, a work I don't always agree with, or was it irrational for me to point out you were pimping your own site in hopes of drawing visitors I expect. Both are perfectly rational. Pull up your big boy pants and either stay and contribute or go away. Your choice.
|
|
|
Post by Kentishman on Dec 9, 2013 11:30:14 GMT -6
Quincannon, I applaud your loyalty to Fred, which is highly commendable, and also fully appreciate that is your prerogative whether or not to visit a website, in this case mine. If you look back on this same thread you will find numerous postings 'pimping' [your word not mine] Fred's new book - it's known as advertising. Nobody is forced to buy - in fact, the material on my site is entirely free of charge! In my earlier post I simply invited visitors to this Message Board to take a look at www.menwithcuster.co.uk if they were interested in learning something new, and I believe to factually correct, about some of the men who served with Custer in the 7th Cavalry in June 1876.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 9, 2013 11:51:58 GMT -6
My loyalty to Fred as a fellow soldier and good friend knows no bounds, for if it did it would not be loyalty.
What you did to Fred upon the publication of his last book is forgivable, but forget, no, and I have a very long memory.
You will be known to me by your future conduct here.
What you say by way of critique, is not nearly as important as the manner of the saying. You do it again and I will be on you like stink on crap.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 9, 2013 12:07:59 GMT -6
Fred does not suffer fools gladly, but next to me he is Tinker Bell in that regard. Probably why I have no use for Russell and his work. But is there something going on here I have missed? I thought this issue was dead... or at least lying fallow...? Maybe not, so let me try to explain my position one last time... and of course I am sure it will bring another response from Squire Blowhard. Here goes... When I first started collecting data, I had no intention of getting it published. Diane Merkel, however, suggested I try getting it in print simply because she-- as well as Elisabeth Kimber-- believed it was worthwhile and should be published. The basic data I had-- this is the stuff on names, dates of birth, places of birth, etc.-- came from Ken Hammer's original book, Men With Custer. Everything else was collected from many other sources and if you take a look at the Hammer book you will see a great difference between the remainder of the information. Some how, I wound up meeting Vern Smalley who had just published two books of his own. Smalley claimed he was very friendly with Hammer and had many of Hammer's notes and data and that much of what was in Hammer's book was incorrect; Hammer didn't authorize its publication; and took little or no responsibility for the mistakes. Sounded like something I didn't want to get involved in.Anyway, that same book was then re-published, this time with Ron Nichol's name as the titular author, though the Nichol's edition still only listed him as "editor," the same as the Hammer edition. Gone, however, was Hammer's name on this second book. As I went over the Nichol's work, I found additional errors. These were all corrected by Mr. Smalley, who was kind enough to share this data with me, including his reasoning and many of his notes. I then got the Roger L. Williams book, Military Register of Custer's Last Command, further vetting the data and making even more changes to my work (Williams and Smalley were remarkably similar in their findings). In addition, another friend of mine provided me with more data-- all from the U. S. Army archives-- and with all of that I put my little effort together and shipped it off to a publisher that was happy to put the work in print. The publisher asked me if there were any so-called "experts" they could send the finished product to for a possible review. I gave them a few names and made the great mistake of including Russell. The next thing I know is receiving an e-mail from Squire Blowhard informing me my book is rife with errors-- maybe in excess of 200!!!-- and if I had consulted him beforehand, none of those errors would have seen the light of day. Well... you can imagine the mood that little gem put me in! The e-mails became rather thick and even my wife got involved admonishing the squire for having something less than good manners... I do not believe she addressed his pomposity, but I don't have her e-mails in front of me. The next thing I know was Russell's mean-spirited review in the CBHMA's Battlefield Dispatch, a blind-sided shot I feel was perpetrated by not only Russell, but Lee Noyes-- its editor-- as well. As Marc Abrams-- in a post above-- so brilliantly stated, right or wrong, that review would be sitting out there for several months and I would have no opportunity at refutation. To me, that was a filthy little trick even I wouldn't stoop to in all my vindictiveness. The review was especially galling, for Russell accused me of using secondary sources when I did no such thing: I would hardly consider the work done by Ken Hammer, Ron Nichols, Vern Smalley, Roger Williams, and our own archives as secondary. Should I have trod the same ground as Hammer... or Williams, for that matter, or is it permissible to use their work and their efforts providing I make it public that I am doing just that? And I did. Russell, however, insists his work on men born in Europe is the only valid work, he, seemingly having gone to all these little obscure parishes and shires to gather the "true" data regarding births, names, places, etc. Having once been married to an Austrian national, however, and having done genealogy work on her family, I know some of the errors and pitfalls inherent in such research, and I have no reason or cause to believe anything the English or Irish ever did regarding the recording of births was any more accurate than what I found in Germany and Austria. Even at this late a date, I see no reason to accept Russell's work as any more valid than what I have garnered here. I might also think that a mother or father would have conveyed a correct d-o-b to their child and that child would have conveyed the same information to his recruiting officer, a day or two removed from Russell's findings, regardless. I might also believe data accumulated in the various churches, parishes, etc., would be somewhat skewed... unless of course we may be naive enough to think all these folks were properly married or married at all, quite possibly accounting for even wider discrepancies. Go figure! Anyway, I stand by my work... and congratulate the likes of Hammer, Smalley, Nichols, and Williams for theirs. Funny, too, that my work seems to be the only one coming in for Russell's poison pen. Best wishes and Merry Christmas, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 9, 2013 12:55:51 GMT -6
You did not miss a thing Fred. My post to Russell was a warning shot across his bow. Nothing more,. Nothing less.
Frankly I don't care about anything he feels legitimate to criticize you about. Differences of opinion, different finds during research, are all fair game that should see the light of day and be closely examined. What I care about is in the manner in which it was done.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Dec 9, 2013 13:49:36 GMT -6
Kentishman, if you are a genuine writer, author or compiler of Custer data, you will know how much effort it must take to write a book about this Battle, now I have read two of Fred’s Articles/Books and found them both excellent, so just what did you find wrong with Mr Wagner’s efforts? You must know that he checks and double checks all his info and has sources to back them. Just where did you find the info for your site?
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 9, 2013 15:17:48 GMT -6
Ian and Chuck,
This is a long-running dispute, going back to my more irascible days just before that ol' prostate surgery. What bothers me the most, however, is not that I can be wrong-- hell, if Russell is correct, I'll notify the publisher so that if they ever produce a second edition, the corrections are made. To me, that is not the issue. What is, is that Russell has singled me out for his criticism. He is supposed to be friendly with a number of others who have produced similar works, yet despite my continuous pleading and my telling people it was those authors from whom I got the data in question, I am the only one he has publicly upbraided. Maybe that is the "benefit" of friendship, but as you can attest, friendship has never stopped me from expressing my views or in telling a friend he is wrong. Conversely, I accept such criticism, always hoping both ways are constructive, not vindictive or mean-spirited.
Furthermore, his extremely presumptuous comment about me having to run my data past him prior to publication is numbing. Nothing I have ever read that was written by him-- up to that time-- gave me the slightest indication he considered himself such an expert in that area of the topic. If I had known, I may have asked him for his data, then compared it to what I had, and then used both, giving him all the credit he would deserve for such a contribution. I did exactly that in the book for Ephriam Dickson.
Like I have always said, I enjoy giving credit where such is due. It makes everyone a bigger person.
Best wishes and a very Merry Christmas, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Kentishman on Dec 10, 2013 4:09:40 GMT -6
Although my recent post appears under the subject heading of 'Fred's [now not so] new book,' which perhaps explains how an unfortunate misunderstanding has arisen, it made absolutely no mention of the said volume. As previously stated I was simply bringing attention to my website - www.menwithcuster.co.uk - that was launched on 31 May this year and recently, sparked off by an offensive and totally unwarranted attack by Fred, has received 'rave' reviews on the 'other' LBHA's Message Board. I would however take this opportunity to dispel any grossly unfounded rumours that "I have it in for Fred": nothing could be further from the truth. Participants was reviewed in the same judicious way as Military Register of Custer's Last Command, by Roger Williams, and Men With Custer: Biographies of the 7th Cavalry, edited by Ronald Nichols with Daniel Bird. The following paragraph taken from my review of Military Register clearly demonstrates my impartiality. "The depth of information relating to each soldier’s military career will be of tremendous value to all students, irrespective of their level of knowledge, whose interests lie in the men who served with Custer. I feel slightly less confident, however, when it comes to other aspects of their lives as by default or design new recruits in the Frontier Army were notorious for giving spurious personal details on enlistment. It would have been helpful therefore if the author had addressed this particular issue under ‘Format of Entries in the Register’ in the Introduction. I refer mainly to dates and places of birth, which in most cases, though not all, are taken directly from Army records and in my personal experience are often at odds with more reliable evidence found in external sources, such as church registers, census returns and civil registration – a criticism that could equally be levelled at Men With Custer and other publications. It is plainly an area where more research remains to be done." Also, the paragraph taken directly from the 'Introduction' page on my website clearly sets out my personal position: "While great care has been to taken to ensure that the information contained herein is correct the author is fully aware that factual, typographical and other errors can slip through even the most stringent vetting process. Visitors to this site are therefore actively encouraged to challenge the veracity of anything that differs from the findings of their own research, although a primary source should be provided as justification for any required corrections. Any consequent amendments will be fully credited to the contributor." Men With Custer UK is an 'abuse-free zone' where everyone is welcome and treated with respect. If Ian would care to contact me via my website I would happily explain to him in a 'quiet way' what this is really all about. That's all I have to say on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 10, 2013 9:28:52 GMT -6
OK: Now that you have submitted your application for canonization and in your own mind elevated youself to sainthood, you should really know that Ian despises pimps even more than I do.
Why don't you peddle this crap to someone that does not know the real story behind what you did to Fred, one that you obviously and conveniently forgot to mention.
There is no misunderstanding here. You are a backstabbing trash picker, and if this is all you have to say on this subject, then be gone and good riddance.
Once again, it is not your knowledge, your research, your references, or your efforts that are in question. It is your ethics, your underhanded methods, tactics and honesty.
|
|