|
Post by Diane Merkel on Apr 9, 2006 9:55:44 GMT -6
Whichever answer gets the most votes by 11:59 PM CDT today will be the resolution.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 9, 2006 10:28:50 GMT -6
I voted for "Do nothing" but I do have one caveat for West & CSS. Courtesy & politeness rules. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone about a matter as clouded with controversy as the Little Big Horn. Disagree yes, but name-calling="to the moon, Alice, to the moon"! Passion, enthusiasm, exuberence in proving a case or hunting down the ultimate "smoking gun" are admirable traits and I appreciate the two of you for that (not counting having the ability to communicate in at least two languages). However, gentle sarcasm may be used And if you don't know where that phrase came from, you will now have to continue your American Cultural Studies 201 class. Billy P.S. West/CSS can we have less creation of new threads stating essentially the same thing?
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Apr 9, 2006 10:40:36 GMT -6
Essentially I agree with Bily's comments on this. I'm not one for censorship, but do believe that freedom of expression is a gift that deserves to be treated with respect. I'd add that most regulars here are intelligent enough to recognise agent provocateurs when they appear - the trick is to ignore them and thereby starve them of the oxygen of the outraged responses they seem to seek. Who knows, maybe by being ignored those concerned will eventually learn a lesson and become part of the community here by adopting a spirit of positive enquiry and criticism!
I too have voted to do nothing for now - though I wish there'd been an option to vote for: 'Firing a warning shot across their bows - with the implication that if another shot became necessary it would be a direct hit: a ban from the site!'
Ciao, GAC
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 9, 2006 10:42:54 GMT -6
I voted like Billy. What I think is that all opinions are to be respected and all to be defended, till they will be defended in a polite manner and language. So let's start again with a different kind of dialogue - more positive.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 9, 2006 10:54:11 GMT -6
"DITTO", but put them on "PROBATION"! As long as they don't cause Diane any problems!
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 9, 2006 11:06:43 GMT -6
of course.
|
|
|
Post by dogsoldier on Apr 9, 2006 11:18:16 GMT -6
As annoying and one-sided as they are, I am not for banning them. My feeling is "If I can't take the heat, I should get out of the kitchen." These guys are like rabid dogs and won't let go of the jugular. They have some points, perhaps even valid, but then they go over the top, which has the negative effect of bringing down all that they've said. They are most definitely wrong on some issues [especially the idea that one can't read about this topic just for "fun"], and have some not totally unfounded opinions on other issues. Again, as bothersome as they are, they should be allowed to stay. The only caveat is that they must not harass the moderator or others who post here, if the others don't wish to go toe to toe. Not everyone here is interested in their "slant," nor in debating them. Not because others can't prove West and CSS wrong, but because even if they could be proven wrong, they'd be incapable of recognizing such a conclusion. Let them stay, just no harassing. Now, let's all cross our fingers that they appreciate we don't want to ban them, and don't take advantage of our generosity.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 9, 2006 11:38:26 GMT -6
All--
I get really nervous about polls about posters, as suddenly the board becomes about other people and not the reason why we're here. I, too, voted to keep them here, but I'm tired of the constant challenges to duel, when there is no fight to be had. The fight was over 130 years ago this June ... and all we are doing are trying to understand it in our individual ways. But that said, there's no room here for the discourtesy that has been filling the board of late. The posters above have stated the case better than I have.
Perhaps Diane can start a "Conspiracy Theories" section on the board, so we can let them have their very own mini-forum and contributors will have a place to discuss the myraid of thoughts out there: from the Grant Gets Custer Whacked hypothesis to Custer Wanted To Run For President So He Disobeyed Terry's Orders. Sounds crazy, but perhaps?
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by Treasuredude on Apr 9, 2006 11:38:49 GMT -6
I don't have a problem with them. What's the point of having a discussion forum if everyone agrees on every topic. That would be just plain boring.
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 9, 2006 12:21:08 GMT -6
treasure, the problem is not disagree. There are 2 ways to disagree. One is tell it and explain your own view. The other is tell it accusing the other to be a liar or poor headed. This second cannot be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 9, 2006 16:37:27 GMT -6
I have been mostly elsewhere for the last couple of weeks and apparently missed a lot of the "fun," but I looked up some of their posts to try to get a handle on this. I have voted for "do nothing," but would prefer the option "do nothing, but let them be warned." There is no excuse not to play nice, guys. I enjoy crazy conspiracy theories as much as anybody, but you can express your disagreement with somebody in a polite fashion.
I like Leyton's idea of a "Conspiracy Theories" thread. Then I can avoid it when I'm too busy and check it out for amusement when I have time, and the folks who are into it can have their fun!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 10, 2006 4:49:49 GMT -6
Fortunately, I was away for the weekend and am too late for my vote to count -- as I'd have been tempted to be less merciful than most of you guys. (But then I haven't grown up with a First Amendment to keep me on the straight and narrow!)
Most of us enjoy the discussions here because people can disagree in a civilised, reasoned fashion. Hardly anyone has an entrenched postion; we're all here to try to get nearer to the truth, and are fully prepared to have our minds changed if someone comes up with a fresh fact or an argument more convincing than our own. That's not "playing among the gravestones" or whatever it is CSS calls it, but attempting to do justice to the real flesh-and-blood human beings involved in the LBH story -- both those who died, and those who survived. Including Reno and Benteen. They were flesh and blood too. (And if we have fun doing it, that's no sin. No-one would ever research anything if they didn't enjoy it.) But abuse and name-calling, and intelligent responses such as "blah blah blah", get no-one anywhere. In fact, they obscure any valid point the perpetrator of them may be making.
And CSS has got valid points. Indeed, he's largely pushing at an open door -- which is what makes the, er, over-emphatic (to use the kindest word) tone of his posts so unnecessary. If he were to read back over past threads, he'd find the consensus is mostly on his side with regard to the facts; it's just the interpretation that differs. (Apart from all else, it does Custer little honour to say that he can only be a hero if someone else is a villain!)
On reflection, I'd go along with the probation idea. Maybe we could see how things go, then have another vote in a month or so's time?
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Apr 10, 2006 6:04:05 GMT -6
Thank you all for your votes and comments.
|
|
|
Post by q on Apr 10, 2006 6:45:43 GMT -6
I am new here and that is why I didn't vote. The only reason I did join was to debate Custerstillstands. And not necessarily to say he was wrong, or right. Because I wanted to present him with the evidence as it is known, generally accepted, and thought of as being correct.
It does seem as though some facts can't be disputed. And I believe it is those facts, if you care look at the threads, that Custerstillstands and West want to change. My intuition tells me that they are not wrong in what they believe in. And even perhaps in what they're trying to do. Where they are wrong, it seems, is that they can't seem to speak passionately and still be civil & polite. I did address these issues with Css early on, and did ask him to stop. Which he did, at least for me. I think the issue here on both sides appears not only being civil and polite, but it is also a matter of respect. If your post isn't respectful, then don't expect civility and politeness in return.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 10, 2006 7:21:24 GMT -6
Let them continue to post . . . I have been able to come up with as many statements by witnesses that constantly contradict most of what they say. They continue to leave themselves wide open for countering their one-sided testimony that ignores the full testimony or reject testimony from the same person/author that they quote to support their views.
|
|