jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 23, 2011 9:06:40 GMT -6
Seeing as how this rant keeps on, like some king of Ever-ready bunny, I'll weigh in with a few thoughts, although, nothing personal about anyone.
Books like facts are all over the place, from pro to con on issues of this or that. And much to the chagrin of some who think their facts should be the only under consideration, they can't and haven't explained our questions to the delightful satisfaction of all the where's, what's and why's of our questions. There are as many mistakes in books as there are here at this forum. The only thing a book can do is tell us what the author wants us to believe. The only book worth reading, to get a good general impression of what went on is the Reno Court of Inquiry. Although, it to is more rife with error, innuendo and insinuation, to many to deal with here, that even it isn't the best source of information, more because of what it lacks than what it tells. So I'm not impressed with what books tell us other than what basic understanding they should impart, and what little we can glean from their pages, without bias, explain. None that I know of do. Each of us, in our own way, are authors posting to a forum rather than the pages of a book. And there are those who reap great harvest without fail from our utterings.
One failure of the Court was in not getting to the heart of the matter. That being Custer's orders, his intentions and what plans there were. Girard began a conversation about this and was, for the most part, an ongoing process throughout his testimony to tell what he knew in regards to this. He was told by the court that it was unnecessary to continue. The question is, if they were going to seek any solution to Reno's sordid involvement about those plans, intentions and orders they had to delve further than they wanted to go. His acquittal was sealed the moment they silenced Girard and anything else was frosting on that cake.
Lastly. One thing books don't do is what the author forgot or conveniently forgot to do. To thoroughly investigate where a story comes from. They accept, on the surface, that was is now generally accepted as fact, without regard to its origins, and usually impeachable truth, could be something more worthwhile to pursue than to regurgitate the same old same old all over again. Yet they are pleased to do so, without remorse, because of the price than the sensationalism they seek. Just one story highlights, underscores and in bold letters tells all. The sensational story of John Martin's ride and his claim to fame as being the quote "last" messenger of Custer's. Just where does this sensational story come from? And who made Martin the quote "last messenger"? And who made his ride quote, "the Last" to leave, that is, if Kanipe and Goldin did what they claim they did? It seems obvious that at least one of the others did something or Martin would have no bragging rights at all, that is unless Sharrow and (forget his name now) would of necessity make it so. The problem here is authorship of that sensational "last" and unimpeachable fact. And what price the other messengers and us today paid for that authors spectacular discovery in his dig for the golden nugget.
What does all of this have to do with the current conversation? If you don't know, you have done the very same thing Graham, Camp and others did. They accepted as facts for sensational report the hint of gold. That perpetuated the myths rather than solved them. It takes a lot to get to a level of understanding on the par with a scholar where none exists. Yet year after year, decade after decade new people enter into the freshman class somewhere, and year after year, decade after decade bring enlightenment because of what they think and how different in thought their pursuits ever take them to heights unknown. Some more than others, but we wouldn't be where we are today if none had been compelled and encouraged to try. The warning is clear. Yet some wouldn't heed it if their very life depended upon it, because they choose not to believe it rather than find the answers for themselves. Scholarship always comes at a price, believing a theory doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 23, 2011 9:17:40 GMT -6
Shan: Noted. What ever makes you think that I wish DC to be taken off this board. I do not and that's for the record. His contributions are to valuable to me and others in understanding what we are all here to try and understand. If for no other reason they serve to say, wait a minute, have you though of this or that. He keeps us from going too far astray. That is valuable. So you must understand DC is not my enemy. I may be his, but he is not mine.
As to the point of non-moderation. Would you feel safe in your city with no police?Would you feel safe in your home with no lock on the door? Would you feel secure, if you for some reason said to hell with all of this I an satified to take life as it comes, no rules, only whim and whimsey of others perhaps less inclined to preserve the things you hold dear? Perhaps you would. That's not for me.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 23, 2011 9:23:04 GMT -6
Well said Jag. Shan, I have been up front with you all here, I have apologised on a number of occasions about my mistakes here, I want to keep on with deep ravine thread, in fact I will post one on Monday, because I cannot access our computer due to the kids using it over the weekend, but I will post some stuff later. Going back to the question you asked earlier, I have stopped my shotgun posts like you have eluded to before, you have only to check the boards to see that the Deep Ravine thread I posted was the first for quite a while, I stopped for a break, mainly because of darkclouds attacks, which have got worse over the last week or so, he now calls me a lazy and illiterate, now I don’t know anyone who would take this lying down, and this is what started all of this calling stuff etc… Ian.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 23, 2011 9:30:31 GMT -6
yan & quinn:
Did you notice how long I've been on this forum? Since 2005 . . . and I have seen all kinds of "posters" come & go. Some like custerofthewest and his "twin", some like DC, & some like quincannon and a whole slew of others. The last thing I'm going to do is resort to petty arguments & attacks with people I don't know over something that took place more than 130 years ago. It's not worth getting your undies in a twist over.
I've had differences with DC but certainly not to the level as others. He's a smart guy and you won't win many arguments with him if you resort to pettiness and personalities. You may have better luck with winning points about the the LBH than personal attacks.
One last thing: It's very easy to insult people from the safety of a computer . . . but that's the coward's way of doing things.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 23, 2011 9:35:25 GMT -6
Let's review.
Yantaylor's posts were widely agreed to be unreadable and nonsensical and far too many in number and I was not the only one who felt that way. After a few attempts to call his attention to these highly annoying attributes, nothing changed. I did the same to the hero's rest group, but since they limit themselves to one thread, nowhere near as annoying.
I became more adamant that he demonstrate minimal regard for readers whom he expected to devote time to his effusions. They ought not have to spend more time understanding his posts than he spent writing them. When his posts were understood, though, most of his questions could have been answered by the free brochures at the battlefield or by use of Google and the Custer wiki, and it was clear he'd best spend his time reading an actual book on the battle. We provided lists of books for him.
quincannon PM'd me that he thought the guy wasn't able to do better and to lay off. I disagreed and thought he was just lazy and sloppy. I recommended general books like Custer's Luck, but the guys who think him incapable of doing better for various reasons also recommended the more recondite and dense books for him to read. Also, the most expensive and difficult to obtain. Odd choices.
Regardless, since he's been justifiably slapped about, his posts are better - well, readable - and fewer. True, he may have help in so doing, but you can all recall his posts that looked a parody of English. Improvement. In any case, he's proven he can do it, and the excuses for his scatter shot incoherence vanish. He takes offense that I called him illiterate, but his own posts still up are solid evidence for that conclusion.
I apologize for nothing, and anyone who follows the posts will note the gutter element was not introduced by me. It came wrapped in the word 'chuff' which apparently can mean either anus or vagina and bloomed within yantaylor's post.
Wild is indeed like the Irish drunk at the bar provoking fights and taking pleasure in them. Like many Irish males of his generation, they can't elevate Ireland to the pinnacle where their mythology has them, so they have to promote the idea that everyone else is no better. This has gone on for a long time, and his posts are still up. Not a few here recall them. They will also recall I've said all nation's have about the same basement, but no other has offset ethical lapses to the degree the US and other western nations have with decided good works, in medicine if nothing else. But, there's a lot else good.
He also doesn't like it pointed out how well the vast majority of English colonies have done. America, Australia, Canada, even South Africa and others. Ireland? Not so much, no, at least till recently.
Wilde says America is guilty of genocide for what it did to the Indians, Britain is as well for what it did to the Irish. But we're also not genocidal enough, since we wimped out and failed to nuke the Soviets when they were our allies and we had the bomb and they did not. From that, all problems today emerge, he informed. We were weak, understand?
And, he has difficulty explaining what happened to the Emerald Isle's original inhabitants, who were not Celt. His military tales vacillate between 'we' for when Britain did something impressive and he wants share in the credit, and 'they' when not. A genuine hypocrite, all still up. So, snuggle up to him if you want, but watch your back.
His own summation isn't remotely correct. And he plays victim about his lone fight against me, but that's patently false. He had lots of unthinking support, often from those who see an argument and conclude both sides are equally wrong so they cannot be held responsible for the burden of an informed opinion. I get sick and tired of Rah Irish stuff that is waved about in this forum as their due, somehow. It's like a parade outside the window in veneration for a genetic code that isn't all that and no better than anyone else's. And when they're made fun of to partially offset endless lists and anniversaries and the nauseating near homoerotic tongue bathing of (the actual) Keogh, they see no annoying attributes to their celebrations. I make fun of them, the Scots (my people), the Native Americans, the Gnostics if they do the same. Except for the fact that the Irish, Scots, Native Americans, and Confederacy failed by internal corruptions (they could not unite, in short), none of it is relevant to the LBH.
quincannon has promised his Crusade to the End, but he's not fighting for anything. I have no intention to change, have seen no reason to, and have zippo for which to apologize, and anyone who reads in sequence what occurred would be hard put, as ever, to disagree with me.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 23, 2011 9:36:52 GMT -6
Crzhrs, I agree with you on the computer way off getting a point over, but what can we do, roll over and let him tickle our belly's. If you can come up with a better way, please let me know, because as soon as I write a post again, he is going to insult me again, now I want to start posting once again, I think this is a great site, but how can I post threads while he keeps hitting me with insults. I will post one on monday like I said before, and lets see what happens, now thats all I can do. BTW: He beat me to it, no darkcloud I have not had any help writing my posts. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 23, 2011 9:45:04 GMT -6
CH: If were about winning and loosing, I agree that DC is a formidable force. That's not what it is about. What it is about is tha ability to enter this forum, discuss the issues, and not feel like you are forced to take a shower afterward.
Now what has been done here cannot be undone. What can be done is to prevent it from happening in the future. That prevention will mean that the moderator will have to moderate. If she does not have the time or the inclanation the problem can still be solved by deputizing someone or someones to act as her agent. You would be a prime choice in my book. You know all the players. Perhaps my initial judgment of you was incorrect. Perhaps you were jaded from earlier battles. The point here is that battles should, no must be about issues and not conduct or personalities. Someone had better make that happen, or as I said before, this board will die. I don't think anyone wants that.
Now if you saw what I said to Dan above. I will make that same pledge to you. If this starts again it will not be at my initiation, but I will not sit silently should others do so. Fair enough?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 23, 2011 11:07:28 GMT -6
quinn:
Diane usually lets things flow here . . . she rarely steps in. Anyone who posts here should be able to deal with issues on their own . . . if someone wants to be an ass then so be it. Most people who have been here for a while know who and what about the members and how they operate.
I get no joy out of belittling anyone . . . however some do and that's a demon they will have to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 23, 2011 11:13:51 GMT -6
Well, that,s an honest answer and one I respect.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 23, 2011 12:18:19 GMT -6
DC You have devoted over half a lenghy post to an attack on my country and my people.The points you raised you raised years ago on various threads and various boards.You got every chance then to make and debate those points.Treads do run their course and people do move on but not in your case. Every reply from you to my efforts contains anti Irish remarks regardless of the subject.You use the board for your own agena of hate. It might surprise you that not many people here are interesed in the ancient history of Ireland or English colonies.Why inflict your private phobias on them.? In spite of your expertise in polemics you have never gained the upper hand in debates with me and knowing that I gave an undertaking to Diane not to discuss certain subjects you take cheap shots at my country. Some good people have put a marker down against the kind of slurs you use against individuals and groups.This is not an extention of the Boulder Louts weekly one minute radio slot.Try not to confuse the two and we can all enjoy our discussions without fear of insult.
PS could I suggest that under the circumstances rather than Wilde another Irish writer Geoge Bernard Shaw would be more appropriate for your purposes.Of course we'll keep the significance of that to ourselves Henry.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 24, 2011 10:18:13 GMT -6
"For the right moment you must wait as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays, but when the time comes you must strike hard as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless" ---- Fabian Society, among whose members was George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Sept 26, 2011 11:16:38 GMT -6
. One failure of the Court was in not getting to the heart of the matter. That being Custer's orders, his intentions and what plans there were. Girard began a conversation about this and was, for the most part, an ongoing process throughout his testimony to tell what he knew in regards to this. He was told by the court that it was unnecessary to continue. The question is, if they were going to seek any solution to Reno's sordid involvement about those plans, intentions and orders they had to delve further than they wanted to go. His acquittal was sealed the moment they silenced Girard and anything else was frosting on that cake. . Why do people keep saying this? Does everyone forget WHY they were in court? I am going to keep this short and simple RENO 1....Was he a coward for going to the hill? 2...Was he drunk and not in charge? How can they get answers to these questions and not ruin the reputation of the 7th? Court was not held to find out about the LBH and yet we start using the RCOI as a major source about the Custer Battle...Might be a little bit of a mistake. Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 26, 2011 12:33:59 GMT -6
Rosebud: I am going to play a bit of the Devil's Advocate here. The RCOI provides us a wealth of information on the battle, information that parts of which may or may not be as you say a path that is a mistake to follow.
I suspect a Little Big Horn COI would have been an even bigger can of worms where everyone was on the hot seat.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Sept 26, 2011 12:56:57 GMT -6
Yes, Quincannon. What you say is true, however they would not need or want to start questioning any story or answer that did not pertain to the CONDUCT of Reno.. This is why they got to sneak a few slams in that were never proved to be fact or fiction. Martini. meeting Boston.......Who cares at the RCOI. No one. If they would have added it, they would have told Martini that those kinds of comments were no help and he should stick to the subject.
The RCOI is a good source book if you want to learn about Reno.
Example.......Location of lone tepee......Why did they skip over this? Well, why not skip over it. It would not have any change in the judgment of RENO.
Just because someone gave testimony that was not the same as some one else was no reason to get all up in arms if it had no relevance in the judgement of RENO.
Boston Custer. I don't think they gave a rats ass when he left the pack train. No one else did either.
Was Reno a coward? Was Reno drunk? How many Indians were there?
Now that is where it gets funny. How many Indians? At the RCOI, the ones that testified first and gave low numbers were drug over the fire and discredited if they did not have a number in the 10,000 area. (total Indians)
If they gave a big number they were left alone. When Reno gets up he gives a number of 900 in his front when he leaves the timber. This gives the impression that Reno is the one who is the calm one and everyone else has bad judgment with there numbers of 1500 to 2000 warriors.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 26, 2011 13:03:36 GMT -6
. One failure of the Court was in not getting to the heart of the matter. That being Custer's orders, his intentions and what plans there were. Girard began a conversation about this and was, for the most part, an ongoing process throughout his testimony to tell what he knew in regards to this. He was told by the court that it was unnecessary to continue. The question is, if they were going to seek any solution to Reno's sordid involvement about those plans, intentions and orders they had to delve further than they wanted to go. His acquittal was sealed the moment they silenced Girard and anything else was frosting on that cake. . Why do people keep saying this? Does everyone forget WHY they were in court? I am going to keep this short and simple RENO 1....Was he a coward for going to the hill? 2...Was he drunk and not in charge? How can they get answers to these questions and not ruin the reputation of the 7th? Court was not held to find out about the LBH and yet we start using the RCOI as a major source about the Custer Battle...Might be a little bit of a mistake. Rosebud Forget? They did, they forgot what they were there to do. RCOI pgs 544-545 The question before the Court reduced to the simplest form is as follows. Was the conduct of Major Reno at the battle of the Little Big Horn, that of a brave, efficient, prudent, and obedient officer? This question involves: First - The orders under which he was acting, and his obedience to those orders. [Exactly how were they supposed to do that if they didn't know exactly what those orders were?] Second- His responsibility in any manner for the defeat of the 7th Cavalry in that battle and the massacre of Gen. Custer and his troops. [Aye the crux of the whole problem, AND, they cant do that if they didn't know what Custer's plans, intentions and orders were. See First above.] Third Whether he manifested cowardice, timidity, or misbehavior in the face of the enemy in that battle, or any portion of it. {How were they to judge any of that if they didn't know what Custer's intentions, plans and orders were? They couldn't.] "Fourth Whether he knowingly or through negligence, abandoned Gen. Custer to his fate? {Still a major debate because Gen. Custer's plans,intentions and orders weren't fully developed.] Fifth - Had he any means of informing himself as to the danger in which Gen Custer's command was placed, and did he take all measures and make proper efforts to obtain information and act upon it? [This is the command decision you place great effort and faith in. As you can see, by 1 through 5 above, and what follows, that wasn't the case.] Sixth Were his relations or feelings toward Gen. Custer, his commanding officer, such as would lead him to obey the orders he received from that officer in a hearty spirit of vigorous and unhesitating support, or - were they those of distrust and suspicion, leading him to criticise and evade those orders, or neglect his duty; and [Did he? Could this orfor that matter any of this be found if they didn't investigate and know Custer's intentions, plans and orders to the fullest?] Lastly- Was Major Reno's conduct during those two days in any other respect unofficer-like and contrary to what should be expected or required of an officer occupying such a responsible position and at such a time? [Conduct. The basis for the court being called in the first place, and 2nd, they coudn't find that out if they didn't fully know Custer's orders, plans or intentions. If they were serious in their duty to find out all of the above, they failed the moment they silenced Girard and any others would would share what they knew. Had they done their duty to the fullest I am confident the matter would not have ended at the RCOI.]
|
|