|
Post by fred on Dec 7, 2010 8:03:49 GMT -6
... Is it about more than the bare facts? Yes I think it is, and I think we have to be grown up and admit to the fact that in many ways it is those grisly details that are part of the attraction. They are after all the banner headlines that illuminate what we believe to be not only a clash of cultures, but the last dying battle between the two very different elements that arose in our psyche... You and I have always been in agreement about one thing. Many people respond to the story of this battle in mythic terms... I happen to disagree with your theory that the command crested the ridge and received a volley that disabled most of the officers--sorry if I'm abbreviating it to the point of caricature--but then, as far as we know it's as valid as any other theory. I happen to think that the end came very quickly and that the dead were scattered far more widely than the stones would suggest, in this I think Benteen was pretty much on the button with his " throw a handful of corn into the air and see how they fall," comment... But back to that question. And I hope you'll believe me when I say that this is in no way a poke at you, I ask it because I'm genuinely interested. Given that you have pretty much stuck to your theories since I first joined these boards several long years ago, why do stay on and let other posters and their inane theories drive you to distraction? To be honest it's a question I ask myself. Pretty much every day throughout those years I've logged onto both boards and read the newer posts. Why do I do it? Why do I waste so much of my time when I have other things I want to be getting on with? I suppose in my case the answer is that I do it in the hope that someone will provide another piece of the jigsaw, a piece that I've overlooked. It doesn't happen very much, but it does occasionally. Dear heavens! Finally, an intelligent voice of reason, here or elsewhere. I hope you can cut me some slack for my introspection, but it is Christmastime, and I have longed for a decent one for many years... this one may be fitting the bill. More than that, however, this dénouement has been long overdue; the bickering should stop. This, at least, is my contribution and it is serious and heartfelt. If I remember the past correctly, Darkcloud and I differ over the dénouement (twice in one post!!) of this event. First of all, I believe it began unfolding fairly slowly, then evolved into two separate events, the first beginning to pick up some semblance of immediacy, the second, finding that immediacy a number of minutes later. The last reasonably accurate sighting of any part of Custer's command took place when Keogh was on Luce Ridge. This sighting was reported by the three Crow scouts, Hairy Moccasin, Goes Ahead, and White Man Runs Him. A time of day can be assigned to that event, a time based on the reporting of other events in related areas of the field. The last reasonably accurate reporting of an event from the Luce Ridge or "Custer battalions" sector was the volley firing. It was seen by at least one of the Crows, supported by others, and enforced by reports of several others in different areas. A time can be placed on that event, as well. That gives us a starting point. We also have a reasonably decent amount of data that gives us a conclusion-point or end-time. We have to backtrack somewhat, but distance and the purported unfolding of events allow us to place a reasonable time on that conclusion/end-time, as well. That means that everything that happened north of Luce Ridge (notice how cleverly I avoided the use of the phrase, "Custer field") can fit into that time-frame. We know of certain events, i. e., body placements point out movement; Indian reports point out areas and therefore distances; other Indian reports point out speeds, locations, and movements; etc.; and how those events unfolded. It is now simply a matter of plugging in reason and logic. I eschew the "Custer-shot-at-the-ford" theory, simply because it makes little sense to me. I would be willing to concede the wounding of Algernon Smith at Ford B for a couple of reasons: (1) Indian reports (two of them, I believe); (2) I believe it was Smith's command that provided a screen for Custer when he was at Ford B, and that would place Smith himself in the vicinity; and (3) the final body placement of Smith, vis-à -vis, the rest of his command. Had it been Custer shot there, I doubt seriously that the command would have continued on, especially since the wound-- a chest wound-- would have been disabling or certainly debilitating in the extreme (the head wound makes no sense; it would have been fatal immediately). Getting back to my original point of two separate events, one unfolding more quickly than the other... we have-- despite the "Goldin/Korn"-type Indian bluster-- some reasonable accounts of how the Indians reacted once Custer arrived on Calhoun Hill. We can also tie in various arrivals based on distances and circumstances, as well as white testimony in other areas of the battlefield, i. e., Indians leaving Reno's battlefield not arriving in-- poof!-- spectacular time (as we read in so many posts on the LBHA board). Again, based on some experimentation and cursory "field" exercises, we can determine how long an infuriated warriors may have taken to ride across Ford B, move deep enough into Deep Coulee, sequester his horse, and infiltrate the known distance into Calhoun Coulee in time to arch an arrow into a static military command atop a ridgeline. That spins out the time-line somewhat and since we are bereft of Western movie-style mounted "circling-of-the-wagons" testimony, we go with what we have. When considered, this is all indeed reasonable and logical because we must now deal with the other action, viz, Custer's move toward Ford D. Again, using distances and reasonable estimates of speed of movement-- would Custer walk at 4 MPH to Ford D? I don't think so!-- we can place Custer at a specific point (based on reported body placements) to tie-in with events on the other area of the field. Putting all of this together, we now come to your point, Shan, of a violent end, a point that makes perfect sense because of our original "beginning-and-ending" times. In other words, we have a start and we have an end. So we have a finite time. We deduct from that all the movements and the time based on distance it took to achieve those movements. That slams us in the face with some sort of violent conclusion reeking of panic (based on reports from the field!, both Indian and white) and disintegration. And by the way, there is only one scenario I have ever been able to fit into these parameters: a counter-clockwise arc resembling a pince-nez with a straight bridge. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 7, 2010 10:54:24 GMT -6
Shan,
I'm not so cuddly, actually. Markland misreads ... again, fred hogs the blanket, and someone snores.
My scenario for what happened isn't strongly held, and no more evidenced than others. I like it because it includes blowback for Custer's nepotism, defeats idiotic claims of dramatic willing sacrifice for contemporary need, does not conflict with the Custer of history nor require the 7th to do things that require practice and training not evidenced in their records. I take pleasure in it because it leaves small room for those who've flung their saddles across the backs of the dead to glorify themselves today, a practice that revolts me and, I contend, should revolt more of us. Sorry, but it should.
I used the opportunity of a post about Pearl Harbor yesterday to illustrate why Living Historians bug me, and would ask in what way costumed twits giving tours as officers and crew on the platform above the Arizona, a tomb, would be more offensive than at LBH where they do the same thing between the unfenced tomb and fenced marble tablets marking error? Time, I guess.
As to why the LBH is an attraction, in the beginning it was a malleable event with no informed structure that could be distorted for many ends, few having much to do with the battle. Prohibition, Indian rights, white supremacy, American exceptionalism, military vs. civvy, and Cavalier vs. drudges, and bravery as its own reward, etc. Gray did much to destroy that and demand focus.
You bring up things that I've tried, and failed, to implant into the discussion. Nomad or farmers. The Indians (who were both, depending on location) replaced the Vikings, Mongols/Huns, Moors and Turks as European bogeyman, which conflicted with the Noble Savage of Rosseau and the various religious myths: Prestor John, the Lost Tribes, all of which could be viewed as an extension of how Europe handled its mental world of vague Christian guilt over those they displaced in history.
The Arthurian aspects to the battle do indeed need mentioning because of the general ignorance beyond 'Camelot' level of what Arthur represents. Nobody is familiar with Roland, any more. Or the Green Knight. Much less the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and the Battle of the Last Cartridge that did clearly inform how the media handled the LBH.
It's one of the reasons that Tolkien is valuable, not just entertaining. It's why I insist that the mental world of the 7th's officers and men needs research and understanding, because it was that world they reached for to describe things and understand them. As we do with movies and books today. The poetry and novels that Custer loved and read, his wife says, and that surely others read has to be there when trying to grasp Godfrey's motivations - and he's the only officer we know lied by proof he provides - and concepts of higher truth.
Of what value is the grain of sand at the heart of a pearl? That's the sort of sentiment Victorians understood and underpinned Honor. The lie or fiasco that generated beautiful scar tissue has thus provided its own exculpation, and needs no more. That no longer suffices.
|
|
|
Post by shan on Dec 8, 2010 5:44:57 GMT -6
Fred,
If you'll forgive me for saying so we are lucky to have a few practical chaps like you and Gray around, ---I know you have your differences with him but let's ignore that for the moment-- people who are prepared to sit down and do the groundwork so that they can lay the facts out for the rest of us to see, especially for those of us who tend to be the dreamers and thus can't see the wood for the trees. By the way I'm treading very carefully here, for as you know genuine compliment versus irony doesn't really work on these posts.
I'm really looking forward to reading your book when we eventually get it over this side of the pond, but--yes I'm afraid there is always a but-- facts or no facts I still have issues with any definite timings or movements beyond Calhoun hill. Up until then I'm pretty much in agreement with you. That said I'm not sure why we have to factor the arrival of those Indians who were off fighting Reno into the equasion. There were plenty enough warriors who hadn't as yet engaged with Reno for one reason or another to keep Custers force busy for the time being, and it's more than likely that a good number of them got into positions to cause some elements of the command a certain amount of trouble somewhat quicker than you imply.
I've struggled with the ford D's issue over a number of years primarily because the only real evidence comes from John Stands in Timber, and although I have a tendency to want to believe every bit of Indian evidence--aside from White Cow Bull that is-- I'm reluctant to ascribe a whole part of the action to one mans word. Nevertheless I have come to accept it, although when it comes to the timing of the event I can't quite see where you are finding your evidence from. The dreamer in me has a hunch that Custer himself was hit during that foray, although it could well have been Smith, and that it was that event that caused the delay on Cemetery ridge whilst the doctors tried to attend to him. But that is where the pragmatist and the artist have to agree to disagree I'm afraid, for it's highly unlikely that any evidence-- and it would have to be oral-- will ever surface to back up my hunch, so hunch it will have to remain.
So what have I been saying? Well I wonder if the slow drawn out beginning of the battle on Calhoun hill was quite so drawn out as you imply, which if true, would mean that the second part of the action---Custer's move to ford D and his subsequent maneuvering would also need to be speeded up in order that one could tie the two events together during a failed attempt to re-unite.
Dark Cloud,
I feel driven as an Irishman to throw this little observation into the basket. During most of the time that The English occupied Ireland, it suited their purposes to regard the Irish as a sub species of human being, a strange animal whose rites and superstitions were both quaint and dangerous. This gave them carte-blanche to do pretty much as they pleased, especially with a protestant god on there side, so one doesn't have to have skin of another colour to be seen as alien. By the way a residue of that attitude still persists amongst many English people who like to imagine the Irish as quaint and somewhat stupid. This is done with a strange inverse affection on their part, which of course let's them off the hook. Ouch! Sorr,y I couldn't resist getting that off my chest as I was exposed to it only a few days ago.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 8, 2010 6:58:15 GMT -6
You don't have to tell me. I actually remember "No Irish" signs in Boston. I've read Samuel Johnson, where the Scots - my people - were considered apes - albeit 'white' apes - and near-human, and this after he had dinner at my clan castle with our clan leader on the Isle of Skye. It's not skin color or religion per se but otherness that scares, then angers, then scares again the establishment.
I've written about the Black Lie that permeated American history in my early school years against Catholicism and the nations that were Catholic. France and Spain - who played, shall we say, something of a major role in our history - are presented as lesser to the English. I'm from New England, I know. The Catholics provided as many liberal and progressive types as the English and American colonists, and the Church was in turmoil against itself over how to treat and deal with Native Americans from the first.
For the record, the Brits also maintain an amusing air of assumed superiority towards Americans (and everyone) in general, as if we were wayward teens: energetic, good lads at heart, but ignorant and devoid of the class imbued genetics to rule. But, they have hope for us. Overall, I'm a great admirer of the Brits, but that isn't denying the lousy things they've done.
I love my country, but that's because I know America has done more good than ill even as it's had more power to do both than anyone, ever. So, it's easy for me. But America was a clean slate at its creation, and didn't have the competing power structures in place that make becoming a Democracy so difficult everywhere else. We don't appreciate that. How England kept the aristocracy involved and vested in a government slowly depriving them of power, and thus precluded class war despite having the strictest class system outside India, is something to be admired. That's not to deny the horrors inflicted on others, but taking a cold objective step back, Britain served civilization well.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 8, 2010 7:14:02 GMT -6
Shan,
Knowing you from previous posts, the other boards, and our personal communications, there is no worry of misunderstanding between us. I take what you say in a very constructive manner and I understand your concerns.
First of all, let me get this straight about "the book." "The book," right now, consists of a single volume that is nothing more than a biographical dictionary. It will be containing the names and brief biographies of all the men with Custer who fought at the LBH. In addition, there are "name/rank/serial-number/date-of-birth"-type entries for those left behind at the Powder River Depot, and maybe even one or two others of import, men like the Corfu-born LT Nowlan. Nothing earth-shattering; nothing someone, somewhere hasn't seen before. Vignettes; odd facts; tiny stories; debatable marker-placement for some... stuff like that. There is also a section for scouts and other hangers-on. Then there is the section for Indians, and this is where things get interesting because I do not believe anything like this has ever been assembled before. To me, that is the draw of the whole affair.
Obviously, this latter section is loaded with its attendant caveats... maybe, might have been, reported to have been, possibly was, only a baby, maybe the same guy with a different name, maybe the same guy but a tribal discrepancy... but 1,500 names, nonetheless, and I would doubt strongly that without going into the arcane fields and halls of musty archives I don't know about, you will ever come across a name mentioned anywhere that is not contained in this book.
There are a number of appendices as well, appendices ranging from the mundane-- company rosters-- to the really cool... in my humble opinion. How about the names of all the guys who rode-- or may have ridden-- alongside Crazy Horse? How about the names of the Indians who said, "Hi!" (or is that, "How!"?) to George Custer as he arrived at Ford B? And there is more.
What you won't find here-- in this "first" (and hopefully, not last) book-- is anything to do with the "time-line" or my interpretation of the battle. That is reserved for Book II, still a dream, still incomplete, still not contracted for.
Now I will say this... the "time-line" is complete... maybe some 450 entries-worth; some 110,000 words of prose are done; and I am hoping to have a proposal complete either this week or next... and we will see from there.
So now, we need a word of explanation. No one has ever attempted a detailed, minute-by-minute depiction of the Custer battle. There is no such animal and in reality, there never can be... not accurately, not "fact" as we define the word. What I have done will be clearly marked, "Simulation." It is now and if it ever finds its way into print, will be then. It is, however, a simulation backed by some Indian testimony and defined by logic, reason, geographical fact, and it fits quite snugly into the various testimonies of what was done, what was seen, and what was heard in other areas of the battlefield. And every single entry is supported by some testimony or the caveat, "Simulation." (As I think about it, that part is not quite complete! Ha! You have given me a task to complete!)
Now... there are a few things you must remember or consider with all of this. Our brains tend to categorize and sectionalize, and do not always accept fully separate actions that occurred almost simultaneously. That is what occurred-- in my opinion-- during the Custer/Keogh fighting. One action did not conclude before another began. You should remember that when trying to depict the entire battle. A second thing is that there was some lag time between "actions"-- and "actions" here does not mean fighting-- but that lag-time is not overly long. There are two (and I will let you figure out those). One was for 17 minutes-- and things were occurring within that time-frame, i. e., Indians getting from Point "A" to Point "B," etc., things that would have to occur for any consequences to have happened. The second "lag-time" was for 15 minutes, and it occurred in a different area; it is supported by Indian "lore"; and things were happening within that "lag," within that area, as well.
A third thing, is your contention about Indians from the Reno fighting. You are correct, and the "time-line" considers that.
It has always been my personal contention that Custer did not need the Indians from Reno's battle to wind up with his posterior in a sling. That is considered in the "time-line," but those Indians also make their entry within that entire context. If you read what the Reno/Benteen participants had to say, Indians from that field of battle departed for downstream at various intervals, the majority of them having departed some 30 or so minutes after certain events took place. That is all considered in the "time-line." Not only that, but those Indians show up at various intervals in the "time-line" and in various areas-- if there is supporting evidence. If memory serves me correctly-- and I would have to double-check right now-- I have some sort of support, however tenuous, for every item listed.
Having said that, there are some exceptions. One exception-- off the top of my head-- is something like Custer departing Calhoun Hill for Ford D. How long did he remain on Calhoun Hill? Who the hell knows!? But we have to make reasonable assumptions and those assumptions have to fit within the overall scheme of things, i. e., other events, distances traveled, reasonable speeds commensurate with occurring events, etc. Was Custer on Calhoun Hill for 30 minutes? Gimme a break! Did Custer travel from Calhoun Hill to Ford D at 4 MPH? Gimme another break! Things like that.
So... anyway... that is what is going on in my mind.
What I am hoping for here-- and I must thank you profusely, because you may have started something-- is a reasonable and non-contentious exchange between myself and Darkcloud-- maybe even as grudging "friends"-- something intelligent that can draw other people-- I am thinking primarily of a fellow named "Montrose"-- into this whole thing. I am extremely tired of the nonsense, the bogus, unsupported and unsupportable theories, the whacky ideas, the iconic prejudice-- and just the extreme prejudice-- we find in so many other threads, boards, and posts. Maybe that can never happen; maybe Darkcloud has to give a bit (I am thinking of people like Elisabeth); maybe we all have to elucidate a bit more clearly or maybe those who have been offended must understand why DC is the way he is or responds the way he does. It is not all his fault, and I have only come to realize that lately.
I also believe too many people are threatened by his intelligence and his insight (though I do still have problems reconciling that with the likes of Elisabeth) and it is easier for them to leave or not participate than it is to ask for some sort of clarification.
I seem to remember the first time I confronted Darkcloud, and I believe I said something about him being a bit obtuse. I believe he admitted to it. (Here goes that damn "search function again!)
Thanks, Shan.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 8, 2010 7:21:14 GMT -6
Nicely put, Darkcloud. I don't know who's older, you or me (I suspect me, since I seem to be older than everybody), but I remember those signs, as well, being from New York and having spent most of my summers at our farm in Massatwoshits. I also remember the "No Blacks," signs as my parents drove us to Florida-- pre-Interstate days. I agree with every word you just wrote, and being of German and French extraction-- with a tad bit of Irish, several generations back-- my admiration for the English is equal.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by shan on Dec 8, 2010 9:18:30 GMT -6
Just to add to this lovefest of agreement {must be something in the air} I too am an anglo file and I would agree that by and large the world is a better place for some of the muddled ways they---they being the English not the Brits--- went about things.
I should also add that I am rather ashamed that the Irish were no better than anyone else once they got to the states after having freed themselves from the English yoke, in the way they treated the native Americans. Unfortunately pain is all too often absorbed and stored, then, rather than being a lesson in how not to act, it is merely delt out to the next poor sop on the the ladder below.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Dec 8, 2010 18:24:59 GMT -6
What annoys, though, about the exodus theory is that people left after they were caught out in something, embarrassed, and - to a one - tried to deflect attention from the VERY specific issue - with my opinion evidenced - by broadening it to character defect on my part. An attack against a contention by someone is evidence of my bigotry against any opinion held by someone of the same background. Bigotry ranks high in that scenario: I hate Indians, Irish, Scots, soldiers, American soldiers specifically, and the fact that I couldn't be a soldier myself, according to them. Thus when "Hunk" Papa didn't know what 'honor' was, or 'semantics', he tried to hide behind purported research in the Oxford. When he realized I was going to look it up, because I could not believe the Oxford had an incorrect definition, he suddenly tried to sub another book, also without citation. Rather than just say, 'oh, you know? I'm wrong' which I do a lot, and you have and others, he refused to admit error or the possibility of it. It's ALL still up. That's annoying, and blood in the water. It was not until I read the above bleat that I finally realized just how deeply humiliated you must have felt when you lost the 'Honor' argument. This is about the third time you have felt it necessary to refer to it so it really must rankle. Of course the thread is extant (Battle Basics, page 3, thread 4 for those who want to revisit the scene of the s.s. Darkcloud being torpedoed) and you are only showing us how utterly self-delusional if you continue to believe you proved me wrong. It will not take long for anyone with even a basic understanding of the English language to apprecitae the snivelling untruths inherent in your quoted post. I am sorry to say that as your English tutor I can only give you an F for your poor grasp of our mother tongue. Oh and please note that I never left these boards on any permanent basis. I was obliged to take a sabbatical for personal reasons, but I owe neither you nor anyone else an explanation for that, though Diane knows why. Run away from you? Hell, the boogie man was more frightening than you could ever aspire to. For some reason, Fred has seen fit to rebut his classification of you as a coward, but he was right in the first place though working from the wrong premise. You are a bully who has picked on the ethnicity etc., of the few non-Americans posters who used to frequent these boards, knowing full well that if they chose to retaliate as Wild did, with any anti-American comments, the majority of the American posters on this forum would natutally leap to the defense of their country. Those are the tactics of a coward. Someone who incites a riot from the rear of the mob or urges a lynching from the anonymity of a crowd. The good people you have denigrated have made the right choice by refusing to descend to the level of a haematophagous creature like you. It is not surprising that you do not understand the meaning of honor because you'd have to have some to know what it is. OK folks, stand back for the 2 or 3 page response of pompous prattling.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Dec 8, 2010 18:44:29 GMT -6
More than that, however, this dénouement has been long overdue; the bickering should stop. This, at least, is my contribution and it is serious and heartfelt. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, I applaud your attempt to build bridges. If friendship is the aim then those bridges should find two people in the centre of the bridge, shaking hands. I think you will find however, that you are expected to cross right over the bridge and bow the knee. Good luck my friend. You ask for the bickering to stop. If it was just bickering it could be, indeed has been, stopped. What people find impossible to deal with are sneering, vindictive, insults, aimed to hurt, meant to hurt. You will never be able to stop that because it emanates from just one source, one that will never change. "Hunk"
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Dec 8, 2010 19:16:40 GMT -6
I find the largest challenge on the internet forms is trying to balance reason with emotion. For whatever reason, the Little Big Horn stirs up passion. It is more like NFL fans than historians.
(I like 5 minutes from Foxboro; how is Denver doing this year?)
So many posts are value laden, with the poster emotionally attached to his theory. Arguments against a pet theory lead to hurt feelings. Hurt feelings spiral into personal attacks and flame wars.
I will give you a hypothesis. The more a pet theory is at variance with known facts, the higher the emotional scaling and intensity of the follow on flame war.
So it is nice to pause, and realize that this is just a hobby. To quote the Godfather, it is not personal, it is just LBH business.
Happy Holidays.
Have an eggnog on me.
v/r Montrose
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 9, 2010 13:00:33 GMT -6
Maybe Diane can give a rating (1-5) for responses
1 = inane 2 = loves to hear themselves talk 3 = hmm . . . interesting 4 = good 5 = brilliant
|
|
|
Post by clw on Dec 9, 2010 14:31:50 GMT -6
Excellent catagories.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 12, 2010 10:53:12 GMT -6
For the record, I regret nothing I've posted. I admit my errors - good thing, because there are lots - and others do and have as well. AZ never hesitates, fred admits it, several others. Big deal.
To a one, the people who are most angry - like Hunk - at being called out by me are those who cannot admit it and don't like it called to people's attention that the exchanges are all still up, forever, in the cloud or on hard drives. They resent having attention directed to their own posts that condemn them. I welcome people reading my posts, wrong and correct, and don't feel lesser for being totally, calcium headed, utterly in error. Being human and very fallable is part of my self-image.
It is not cruelty to point out error and stay on it till admitted. These boards last forever, and if exchanges of nonsense are allowed uncontested, error and falsehood remain in the record for newbies to find and relive to no purpose. It's what I mean be saying discussions arrive at conclusions and move on to new topics. Otherwise, it's just wallowing in subject matter and exchanging often repeated info or misinfo. A sizeable number of people in Custerland just want to exchange the near exact same sentences over the decades they got from other people on other boards or in different years.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Dec 13, 2010 16:08:32 GMT -6
For the record, I regret nothing I've posted. I admit my errors - good thing, because there are lots - and others do and have as well. AZ never hesitates, fred admits it, several others. Big deal. To a one, the people who are most angry - like Hunk - at being called out by me are those who cannot admit it and don't like it called to people's attention that the exchanges are all still up, forever, in the cloud or on hard drives. They resent having attention directed to their own posts that condemn them. I welcome people reading my posts, wrong and correct, and don't feel lesser for being totally, calcium headed, utterly in error. Being human and very fallable is part of my self-image. It is not cruelty to point out error and stay on it till admitted. These boards last forever, and if exchanges of nonsense are allowed uncontested, error and falsehood remain in the record for newbies to find and relive to no purpose. It's what I mean be saying discussions arrive at conclusions and move on to new topics. Otherwise, it's just wallowing in subject matter and exchanging often repeated info or misinfo. A sizeable number of people in Custerland just want to exchange the near exact same sentences over the decades they got from other people on other boards or in different years. Well at least you kept it shorter than 2 to 3 pages, but sorry, it is yet another exercise in whining self-pity. You are only digging a deeper hole for yourself by prolonging this matter and trying to wriggle off the hook, but hey, it wouldn't be you if you didn't! Angry? Me with you? That would take what little energy I have so I certainly wouldn't waste it on a self-important jackass like you. It would also mean that I have a need to defend a position and that is not the case. You do, but as usual you have tried to twist the facts around to suit yourself. What I feel for you is disgust. You prate on as if somehow you are superior but as Chateaubriand said: "One is not superior merely because one sees the world in an odious light." Ironic really when you are the odious one because all your insults are ad hominem and ipse dixit with no other purpose than to upset whoever they are aimed at. Error and falsehood are one thing, vicious barbs clothed as the truth are another. You probably see yourself as a breath of fresh air when actually you are nothing but a mephitic presence here. Ah, poor little fellow, has the nasty man upset you? Would someone please put a comforter in his mouth? What do you mean they don't make them that big?
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Dec 13, 2010 16:23:30 GMT -6
I find the largest challenge on the internet forms is trying to balance reason with emotion. For whatever reason, the Little Big Horn stirs up passion. It is more like NFL fans than historians. (I like 5 minutes from Foxboro; how is Denver doing this year?) So many posts are value laden, with the poster emotionally attached to his theory. Arguments against a pet theory lead to hurt feelings. Hurt feelings spiral into personal attacks and flame wars. I will give you a hypothesis. The more a pet theory is at variance with known facts, the higher the emotional scaling and intensity of the follow on flame war. So it is nice to pause, and realize that this is just a hobby. To quote the Godfather, it is not personal, it is just LBH business. Happy Holidays. Have an eggnog on me. v/r Montrose I'll join you in that eggnog montrose, but what I can't do is buy into your theory as the only one that causes friction on these boards. I can understand why some people would get upset if their pet theories are challenged as a certain amount of emotion has been invested in reaching that belief, but insults which have not been solicited and which are used quite maliciously cannot be ignored ad infinitum. There is a forum known as the AAO boards which is now virtually stagnant because of such insults and I have no wish to see that happen to this forum. Happy Holidays to you to. "Hunk" Papa.
|
|