|
Post by quincannon on Apr 25, 2013 18:33:41 GMT -6
I understand Fred better than you can ever imagine. We went to the same school. We approach tactical problems in a similar if not identical manner. I understand context and battle flow, and what I both know and understand is that Fred may be dead wrong in how he sees this battle, which he is not, but Fred would never put out on this board, or in private or anywhere else for that matter the sheer nonsense that you attribute to him. Now Fred has corrected you. I have corrected you. If you continue on the track, what you say is a bald faced lie, said deliberately while knowing full well the truth about both what he said and the intent behind it.
Go snivel some place else you insolent swine. but for God sakes be gone from my sight before I lose my temper.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 25, 2013 19:16:45 GMT -6
Chuck, you are the first American I have ever know who says he prefers Tea, yes I had a brew with a couple of chocolate biscuits around 3 o’clock, I am on a course at the moment which will hopefully result in me taking my Citizen Guilds, and they served tea at the afternoon break. AK, I have never eaten a cucumber sandwich in my life, but I do enjoy a kipper on a Saturday morning whilst enjoying the papers, with a pot of tea of course. Britt, I know some Women over here who must drink a gallon of tea each day, it must help to lubricate their jaws whist they ‘’chew the fat’’. Richard, are you trying to start WW3 on this board, blue on blue my god man, we have more trouble with green on blue with those insurgents joining up and shooting our men when they are feeling safe and off guard, blue on blue are accident’s, green on blue is just bloody murder. Ian. Ian, I drink iced black tea everyday. Now when I was in Pakistan, Oman, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia and Singapore, the crap they called tea and drank was like mud. bc
|
|
|
Post by ulan on Apr 25, 2013 23:10:46 GMT -6
I think sometimes it is better to take a rest. Stay away from the PC for a day and to bethink.
Should be a history facts discussion forum here but not a arena for wild and old soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 26, 2013 0:26:32 GMT -6
Again Because he saw Indians running and because the ford opposition was light, Custer opted to move farther north, all the while “knowing” Benteen was on his way, willing to risk further separation, “knowing” it would not be for long… maybe 40 minutes, based on his own running of the same route The above is emphasized in Fred's summing up from the same post------ Benteen was believed to be on his way… Custer could afford to take chances: they were measurable and they were manageable. Fred ties the arrival of Benteen to time available for taking chances which stated above is 40 minutes. QC's question was Where does Fred state that Custer had 40 minutes unencumbered to play withsee below 40 Minutes where the risks were manageable and measureable Fred states I give no one any "40 minutes breathing space." I honestly think I'm justified in believing that breathing space equates to space in which the chances were manageable and measureable.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 26, 2013 2:17:19 GMT -6
Fred I "pluck" nothing from the air Well plucking from the air might be overstating the case. You set the scene for a 40 minute window of opportunity for Custer.That time is an ETA for Benteen.But there is another party to this 40 minute opportunity.And no ETA has been suggested for them. You say that this 40 minute window of opportunity was manageable and measureable. Basing tactical time only on the arrival of your own forces is underestimating your enemy by 100%
Ian How are you? Your concern for world war 3 is greatly appreciated.It might have escaped your notice that it began about the time you were being dumped upon by the bully of the day.And who went in to bat for you mate? Best Regards
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 26, 2013 2:20:14 GMT -6
Ulan Agreed
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Apr 26, 2013 5:37:06 GMT -6
I must say that I've never seen such a performance as I've seen here. Tweedle Dee (Q) and Tweedle Dumb (F) having given the finest performance of their acting careers. Look fellas this is one of those gray areas (pun intended) where no one knows what happened, and further when it might have happened or if it even did other than the dead body's' being found where they were, nada, zip. In fact the whole battle from start to finish is an unknown where one mans guess is as good as it gets. Now we've got those supposedly in the know calling other people they think that don't know, and apparently have no right to take even a guess, because its only they that supposedly do know, names, names unbecoming their own character, their own look up to status as officers, one even a book writer of some note, trying to rewrite history, force history into becoming what they want it to be. This regardless of the fact that not one Indian gave sworn testimony to anything they said. That time itself to them was something conceptually not used the same way the white man used it. Their whole language being totally reverse in train of thought from our own. This so much so that to have reasoned as they did required time travel Marty Mcfly style to understand what they had just said. As if none of that was important at all, the next hurdle would be were those who tried to translate that gobble de gook any good, or even more important, only understanding it in some biased way, as in hello...'I worked for the U.S. government', or 'I can't believe what I'm hearing so I'll make it sound good another way, after all Gen'l. Custer couldn't have been all that bad, damned Indians.' Gabby Hays where were you when they needed you?
Oh but wait, it only gets better. Much of this shinola had to have passed the oral gas tribal version of events, and even appropriately, the family's version so that Standing Bear woulda stood much taller than he had previously done. There are certain, what I call trip wires, when it comes to believing such handed down garbage, this where the translator injected his fart proned thought into where Shining Beaver Creek was, when in fact he couldn't have had and didn't have a clue. This just as much as trying to say that that particular Creek was the one passed two days ago by Custer and his men exactly 2 and 7/8ths mile, 231 yards, 4 feet, 3 and 2/3rds inches east of Busby. Yeah that's the one, the one the white man call Muddy Creek so the translator put that in his translation when the Indian pointed and grunted Keemosaaby as if the direction and miles etal. to Bear Tooth Pass' melt water meant squat to the Indian he was translating for. And as for accuracy, where it might yet be claimed the translators were 80% accurate, really? Do we honestly know whether it was the 80% or the 20 when at least 50% of their story was hear-say anyway?
Rather sadly, more often than not, people wanting, no needing recognition at a certain skill find it by executing and mastering of that skill, not by merely stating they have it and others don't. More's the pity to see such cock sured confidence and assurance by some today of people with a shadowy past back then, when such specific information all related to past events and of time was then as now a freaking crap shoot.
It all boils down to trust. And there really isn't all that much to trust. First do we even know each other, big-huge trust issue here. 2nd, This computerese garbage, as much sign language or smoke signal, take your pick, isn't the most convenient of choices to discuss time related issues, as some have no clue at all when it comes to discerning, or for that matter caring, when the Indians made certain statements used here as proof positive of anything. And like an ever growing cancer they melded their version to the story... ipso facto. And much of the Indians 19th century history is and was defined by oral tradition. The specifics of which, and accuracy of which might not be accurate, and more than likely wasn't. Still there are those who greatly respect these oral stories as if they'd have wished themselves a century back and into fashionable heritage garb as to approach this subject with a degree in history in mind, they can't and never will completely disallow it. But it should be, as it wasn't then nor is it now anything but hear-say and isn't a guarantee of truth. This much like the RCOI where there were more than a plenty of stories that didn't match, still don't, some even some could say such stories were stretched to the limit of what actually happened and thus discarded like some kind of Indian oral tradition. This so they, you know, those in the know, especially those two mentioned above can feel the obsessive-compulsive emotional need to GET EVEN or GET THE FINAL WORD to SURVIVE and WIN AT ALL COSTS attitudes that belie the fiction they engender, the myth they embrace and they lie they believe.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 26, 2013 6:08:44 GMT -6
You set the scene for a 40 minute window of opportunity for Custer. Again, this is a perfect example of your penchant for taking things out of context. There was no such thing as a 40-minute window of opportunity and I do not believe I ever used such words. What I said was this: Despite DC's refusal to believe the Boston Custer incident, the only evidence we have tells us it did occur. DC hinges his argument-- or at least a part of it-- on Martini's comment that the Custer brothers-- plural-- were at the bluffs, overlooking the valley. This from the man who also told the RCOI when asked how far—distance—they had traveled from where they had watered to where they looked down to see the village, he replied, “… about an hour and a half after we left the watering place till we got to that place,” clearly meaning, a mile and a half. So now, suddenly, DC would like us to hang on a plural word this semi-literate immigrant uttered and disregard an incident he reported, albeit several years after the RCOI. Of course, the RCOI did not focus on Boston Custer, nor was it its mission to do so. And we are supposed to do this at the exclusion of what two officers recalled, two officers whose accounts we accept generally as some of the more reliable for the whole affair. While the time study of Boston reaches the extreme of anything I have done, it is plausible and based on the work done by AZ and "zekesgirl," as well as letters from 19th and 20th century veterinary officers of the U. S. Army and modern-day Websites, the speeds I employ for Boston are quite reasonable and doable, especially over terrain that was not that difficult (as it was once beyond Luce Ridge). Boston's body of LSH tells me therefore, that he had to have reached his brothers well before the gates closed and if he did so, he had to have seen the beginning of the Reno retreat and of course, he knew Benteen was on his way. Now, the "40 minutes." In my opinion, Custer had developed his plan by this time (MTC) and he was heading north unless his recon to Ford B dictated otherwise. (Please try to focus here, wild, and remember his mission.) Since Boston now assured him Benteen was on his way, Custer could put a possible arrival time to the scenario-- since he had already traversed the same route Benteen would be using! This is hardly a "window of opportunity," so your depiction of it as being so is a complete distortion of what I wrote. It was nothing of the sort. Custer knew his job, he knew what he had to do, and he had emphasized speed the entire way... go ahead, wild, now tell me speed was incidental or unnecessary, and that Gray's claim of a 3.9-mile-per-hour walk down Reno Creek was valid.... So, then, the 40 minutes in question was merely an approximation in Custer's mind-- and maybe even mine, since I wasn't there-- of how long it would take Benteen to arrive. It gave Custer no "window of opportunity," no time to break out the pinocle cards or the picnic baskets; it simply dictated to him something he already knew: to re-concentrate his forces for a combined attack on the village "refugees" at some northern point, Custer had a limited amount of time. Now let's see how you can distort all that. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 26, 2013 6:15:24 GMT -6
Should be a history facts discussion forum here but not a arena for wild and old soldiers. Back off, Ulan. You are correct except when "old soldiers" are misquoted, taken out of context, and lied about. Try it sometime and see how you like it. Then you have dreck like "jag" entering the picture and the whole thing begins to stink. Too bad. Of course, if the boards were monitored properly maybe things like this wouldn't happen. Hell... I would even be willing to drop off if I am so-o-o-o offensive to so-o-o-o many. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 26, 2013 7:03:27 GMT -6
I am not going so far as to say back off Ulan. You have the right to express your opinion of me, or anyone else. What I will say is this. No one has the right to take something out of context, distort it, and use it for their own purposes in some childish manner.
Even JAG has the right to post what he wishes, just as I have the right to think it nonsense, and ignore him. Each of these two people have an axe to grind. One thinks he knows everything there is to know and goes to great lengths verbally, and in a completely disjointed manner to prove a point that he is the intellectual superior of all mankind. In fact I have never seen a man who could write more and say less in my life. But that's OK with me, for while it annoys, it is rarely vicious, and he does largely stay on subject, disagree, I think perhaps, maybe, I suppose so, who knows, for without a translator, I can make little sense out of the disjointed jumble of words.
The other is a piece of trash that is continually trying to prove that he is not the inferior being that he is. He is the type only God could love, and I am not really sure about that. But his feelings of inadequacy are justified because he is inadequate.
Fred has worked long and hard at what he has done. Someday soon you may come to appreciate just how hard when his book takes its place as one of the essentials in your library
He deserves to have that work respected. That does not mean always agreed with. It means respected. I don't agree with all of it completely myself, but neither have I put the work in it that he has, and in instances of doubt I bow to his more through scholarship.
Now to the other matter. Wild has not yet insulted your country by his nasty statements, intimations, and lies. When he does you will understand how this man operates, and what a complete swine he is. Until that time, when it is a matter of national insult that is being addressed you may very well be told to back off. If your country is ever insulted, it will be just as much a reprehensible act directed at yours as it is to mine. What Wild does not say is that he has family in the United States, he comes here to enjoy our hospitality, take advantage of whatever we have to offer, then finds every opportunity to run my country into the mud, as he did yesterday, never understanding that his words have possible consequences that reach far beyond this board. How for instance would you feel, were you one of the many non-member visitors here and were also a member of the family of one of those men killed by blue on blue fire. It was a horrible event, a mistake, that happens in the heat of combat, but would you like it if someone was using that horrible event for his own purposes, or needlessly insult for some petty purpose? I don't think you would
So what I will say to you is that although the events of yesterday are and were distasteful, any time they reoccur they will be met with the same vigor, until that lying piece of gutter trash either mends his ways or is ground into dust. I hope I have made my position perfectly clear.
Fred you stay the hell where you are, and please do not even consider absenting yourself from this board, because of gutter snipes.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Apr 26, 2013 8:53:38 GMT -6
Fred. Really for someone who thinks this fiasco was somehow a military operation, when it wasn't anywhere near that 60's mentality of operations you'd have hoped it could have been. Hell even in WWII, just as it was accurately depicted in Saving Private Ryan they were drafting school teachers as officers because they quickly needed someone, anyone who'd teach and lead a bunch of prepubescent children into the depths of hell itself. It was far worse back in 1876. Near 80 to 90 percent of those men on that field hadn't seen action in the Civil War, and that speaks volumes about military capability. The Indians had more military knowledge in their big toe than the average military private of the time. They didn't have all the fancy names, fancy assed military code and garbage terms and didn't need them. Quite simply they had enough hunting experience needed to herd those troops where they wanted them. Fancy assed military terms like choke points being something naturally evolved through the buffalo hunt for them to have known what to do naturally, and naturally when to do it individually without the urging of a too tall like Custer or his cluster, even then they not discerning it early enough. At least the Indians could ride and shoot. It's rather obvious that the U.S. Cavalry at the time couldn't and was the primary reason for dismounting and letting themselves be outflanked, out gunned/arrowed...whatever, and then herded to extinction after their 7 shots had been fired.
It sure isn't me who's trying to change history. Its a historical fact touted about these boards for eons and by as many posters that what Custer faced was overwhelming odds. They're all still there for anyone to find, even yours. He supposedly ordered Reno to bring the Indians to battle and therefore not to scatter them. Why not his own downstream plan evolving on the fly being anything different than Reno's, as he had no capacity to charge anywhere at any time unless the Indian's be caught running. He'd have expected Reno to perform no less than he himself did, take all his men with him wherever he went. But no there's this constant need to have him tune in, drop off, and perform ritualistic maneuvers uncharacteristic of a commander who's split up command was about to be slam dunked by an overwhelming foe. The fear as we still understand it was that they would refuse battle. The thought was that if they could bring them to battle, albeit their own on foot and no other, that a thorough thrashing would be all it would take to get them scurrying back the the rez. Not historical? Think again, its well recorded and accurate. There's not one whiff of evidence to suggest what took place on Custer's field, my own as probable as the next, and fitting with the known record better than most, that Custer took all of his troops to the river, whatever ford you choose - who cares, and then have 3/5ths of that command strewn about the field as Benteen described as so much scattered corn. This supports the notion that Custer's command was surprised by the number of warriors, they were pushed back from that ford and dispatched by the same horde that drove them away from that ford. If any dropping off was done, it was done by the local command and had nothing to do with Custer issueing such a contrivance. And it had more the need to locally defend themselves right then and there more than anything fancy thing else. That is assuming the historical ford B was the one you choose to use, this based solely upon Maguire's placement, entirely so, of where he thought Custer's trail was.
I think you and QC are entitled to your opinion, whether we agree or not. A view you don't share with those who disagree in total with you. Also, as a writer you should be disciplined enough to know to avoid repetition in any narrative anywhere, yet your constant need to repeat, even when contributing to the atmosphere of an informal forum, like this one, says what about your writing skills - let alone the unbiased discipline needed to place any text you write in a correct historical context. So take your childish bullying elsewhere, it doesn't do a thing for you.
Did I lay that out coherently enough for you QC? Just because you chose to speed read, its your prob, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 26, 2013 10:04:03 GMT -6
Richard please, I was trying to stop you from making a fool out of yourself mate, we have all been attacked in some form or other on this board and have responded back in kind and with a little extra punch, but I just thought that you went too far with the blue on blue comment, so my post was meant to help you, not to let you Hang your bat out to dry at off stump, there was a dozen ways you could have responded if you felt angered by AKs comments, but there is a line mate and you crossed it with the blue on blue.
Now going back to having you in my corner over the DC kicking, yes you did support me back then and I have thanked you for it, Chuck as well threw his weight in on my behalf, it was good to have you two guys in the same fox hole when the lead was flying, but this is different, I was only guilty of being naive and add my bad grammar I took a lot of abuse, but you seem to attract fire like a target on a range, your battle with DC has lasted for over eight years (maybe more), your latest fall out with Chuck has some history as well, so it wouldn’t make a bit of difference if I started to take sides because the only way this would end is when you stop offending people, I mean would I join a Russian web site and have a go at their foreign policy? The answer is no, if I did I would only have myself to blame when I got verbally abused, and that is the difference between what is happening to you now and what happened to me with DC.
Britt, I need a cup of lemon tea after writing this, because it pains me to see all this anger, maybe have one of Chucks Cucumber sandwiches too.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Apr 26, 2013 10:51:16 GMT -6
Before anyone gets the weepies over how poor little Dick has been treated here, please remember that all of the responses aimed at him are the result of him shooting his foul mouth off.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Apr 26, 2013 11:12:48 GMT -6
I think the flame wars are getting a bit out of hand. I know it has been suggested before. But can we move personal attacks to a separate thread?
The attacks break up otherwise worthwhile discussions. This is the internet. There will be flames, there will be trolls, there will be dumb posts, there will be offensive posts.
Wishing you all the joy of the day.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 26, 2013 11:15:09 GMT -6
OK. Ian has stated the case better than anyone. Perhaps it will be taken to heart and not be repetitive. For now the case is closed, for we all have far better things to concern ourselves with.
|
|