|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 11, 2006 13:28:08 GMT -6
It must be some kind of grease . . . maybe axle grease instead of bear grease?
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 11, 2006 16:23:04 GMT -6
It must be some kind of grease . . . maybe axle grease instead of bear grease? Crzhrs-- I'm guessing it is the infamous cinnamon oil, which on the date of this portrait, GAC must have slathered upon his golden, pin-curled locks. But it does look more like the 30-weight you'd normally put in your car's engine! Regards, LMC
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 11, 2006 17:13:59 GMT -6
Thanks for your fairness. I admitted that I crossed the line some times (call me Travis), but I expressed apologies for people who deserved it. Never heard any apologies about me. CSS, today you didn't merely cross a line, you eradicated it. What goodwill you had built up with me is, as a result of your stupid remarks disparaging an American soldier killed in the line of duty, now history. And the bad thing for you is that I considered many of the things you said worthy of research. You sir, are a damned idiot! Beating the same drum as if you and only you have the answers to questions that better scholars than either of us have been unable to find in 130 years. Leave us "chess-players" alone and go find some location where you can continue to be the all-knowing Oz. Just remember, behind every curtain is merely a man. Billy
|
|
|
Post by Treasuredude on Apr 11, 2006 17:35:18 GMT -6
>>CSS, today you didn't merely cross a line, you eradicated it. What goodwill you had built up with me is, as a result of your stupid remarks disparaging an American soldier killed in the line of duty, now history. And the bad thing for you is that I considered many of the things you said worthy of research. <<
I'm with Markland on this. I was all for giving CSS the benefit of the doubt. I had stuck up for him earlier in this thread but this has gotten out of hand.
It's one thing to get a little bent out of shape in a debate with someone but to disparage a dead soldier's name is uncalled for.
CSS, for me this is a hobby. I study LBH and Custer for the pure enjoyment and my own education. You are taking this way to seriously. If I ever get to the point where I feel I must be disrespectful of any soldier (Indian or white), I'm going to find another hobby.
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 12, 2006 3:43:54 GMT -6
Treasure in this you are right. For exemple I contest over fatherland jokes. Or anything that presume one is more wise or knowledgeable of another. Someone treated very badly CSS and West. It's also true that CSS attacked Diane vigorously, forgetting that she is the administrator, our host and, first of all, a woman. True also he ask forgiveness. So, for me, CSS and WEST can be well accepted and discussing with me, sharing our opinions. As told, I enjoyed also much of their posts. BTW, don't you want to choose a better picture of Custer ? On this one, he looks pretty vain and I know that most of his enemies are using this picture as a proof of his vanity. Please... To me he looks not vain, but very gentle. A passionate man. I have chosen this one as a symbolf of "under the hat and the uniform there was a man with flesh, blood, and feelings. And, the eyes, are not close! They seems because the size of the photo is not adapted to the size of the avatar. At the contrary, the photo shows the eyes of Custer as better as possible. Think instead, that I don't like the photo you choosed. It looks not natural. That was not the true Custer, but the one that the photographer wanted. So both can keep our photos. I feel myself ridiculous now, but I had to answer... I guess this is not the most important side of this board! Oh, also, about alliance: no alliance. I don't agree with your methods, and your presumption and tendence to believe just what fit with your idea and refusing any other idea. I think you have one personal paint of the battle that you are trying to substantiate with facts. This is not researching the truth, but trying to give concreteness to our own dreams. And in this you will fail inesorably, specially with LBH, as the only sure thing there, is that Custer goes there and lost the battle. All the rest are opinions. So not alliance. But I am so adult that I can even agree and respect an enemy or condemn the mistakes of a friend
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 12, 2006 4:01:10 GMT -6
Billy, You know that I keep you in a very high regard. But please don't use insults. This get your normal high standard down on a worst level that don't belongs to you.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 12, 2006 5:17:55 GMT -6
Billy, You know that I keep you in a very high regard. But please don't use insults. This get your normal high standard down on a worst level that don't belongs to you. Michigander, thanks for the complement but, as a person, I am just as capable of being an SOB as anyone else. It is my God-given right! But, if by insult, you mean the portion calling CSS "a damned idiot", well, I stand by that comment as in my opinion it wasn't an insult or even an opinion but a simple statement of fact. Look at it from this direction. The membership, despite his constant harping on something which in my opinion can never be more than a sub-plot to the entire Yellowstone Expedition fiasco, refuses to tone down his message but, as a matter-of-fact, gets more strident by regurgitating something which Skelnar states (Wallace lied) but never proved and then he goes beyond the bounds of good taste, wishing that the soldier would burn in hell. Enough time spend spent on the idiot, better things to do. Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 12, 2006 6:09:35 GMT -6
I understand your reasoning Billy.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Apr 12, 2006 22:17:55 GMT -6
All -- On Page 3 of the Another Conspiracy Theory thread in the Custeriana section, Reply No. 35, West quoted a reply I made to pjsolla and said, in part: I never wrote to you ! And I already wrote I was not CSS (as you may have been able to figure - we had been more than often connected at the same time)... I have about five e-mail message from David Cornut that I will be glad to forward to anyone who wants to see them. In the e-mails, David and I were discussing his website and these message boards. David is both CSS and West as I shall now prove. Here is an image of a message you can view for yourself. It is by West in the "A Military Lawyer" thread in Custeriana Queries and is the last reply (No. 29) on Page 2. He quoted something I said to CSS and replied as if the website being discussed is his. You should be able to see the IP address of his computer in the lower right corner, 85.0.176.93. On your computer, you probably see the word logged. The next reply (No. 30) is at the top of Page 3 and was made by custerstillstands about a half-hour later. You should be able to see that the IP address is the same. There are other examples, of course, but this set shows that West was replying to a comment made to CSS. He clearly forgot which character he was playing. You may disagree with the way I handle some matters on this board, which is fine, but I am NOT a liar! Diane
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 13, 2006 0:42:44 GMT -6
Diane, while I think you are a modern "saint" for dealing with us knotheads who persist in acting as if a battle which occurred 130 years ago is still relevant, I really wish you would not post such small print images, dammit!
My mind's components are having a contretemps on whether to go blind or Alzheimer's first and they do not need any reinforcement for either's position.
By the way, I don't think you could tell a lie if someone paid you money!
Be good,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by weir on Apr 13, 2006 7:05:06 GMT -6
Which is not a proof because we are both writing from an university classroom. Which contains about 700 computers in 8 rooms in a 10'000 students university spread in 25 buildings.
I'm currently writing from another room. Which, I think, has another IP adress.
If you want to stick to your illusions, be my guest, but I'm not CSS. Never will.
And I never wrote to you. Never. As you may see if you check your e-mails. You may have thought it was me but it was not.
|
|
|
Post by q on Apr 13, 2006 7:49:05 GMT -6
While I do applaud our webmistresses efforts. And support her and thank her for what she has tried to do. I don't think that we can conclude that they are one and the same person. Because most IP addresses, as I understand them, are "area" based networks. I think it would be difficult to say, one way or another, whether they were the same person, based upon IP addresses.
I feel the difference is in the way a person thinks, feels and reasons. And there may be differences there. Perhaps both West and Css would like to respond to these questions to prove what I have said. It's completely voluntary. No one is pressuring you to do anything. It's just that if we are to believe that you are two different souls. Then what's the harm in answering these questions?
What in your thoughts and words would justify the conquest of the American west in the 19th century? And if you please, more than one reason.
What in your thoughts and words would you classify as an atrocity in association with the conquest of the American west? And if you please, more than one example.
What is it about the American Indian culture that you can't respect? And does this way of reasoning to your way of thinking make what you believe about their past, true today? In other words: Does their ancestor's past atrocities make them undeserving of respect in any way today?
|
|
|
Post by weir on Apr 13, 2006 8:13:17 GMT -6
Strange questions... If this can help you... Justify ? I don't know. I would have said the Mayflower pilgrims had the right to find a place where they could live peacefully without being arrested, persecuted and killed. Like black slaves did in Liberia, Armenians in Armenia or Jews in Israel. But for the conquest of the west... I would say every nation did fight to grew up and the US was no exception. I think the anglos could have lived near an indian civilization, but it is obvious it could have happened. Could anglo and Indians have lived side by side ? Probably not. It would have asked Indians to forget war which was the main reason of their societies and it would have asked anglos to forget immigration, which was the first reason of the existence of their society. The cultural differences were so high to hope another end than a military defeat of one of the two fighters. So... no justification other than "I don't know how it could have been dealt otherwise..." It let me think I would have acted at the time like many Whites did (missionaries) in order to help the Indians tribes to abandon some of their very violent customs (see below). It would have helped anglo people to consider them better and to achieve peace, maybe the two states I talked about before. Without that change of mind, nothing could have been possible. And nothing had been except the reservations, where the Indians had lost many things of their culture. Massacres like the massacre of Minnesota and Sand Creek. In their XIXth century culture, authorized torture, authorized rape, authorized mutilations, authorized sex with white children, the place of the women and the obsession of war. All that stuff that has been erased from the American memory by PC. Now, all of that his gone, but I'm judging the past, not the present. Only if they deny them. As White (and European) I would certainly look at the bad customs of my own society, but it is a right and a duty for everybody to look honestly at their own history and history of others. Especially the dark side.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Apr 13, 2006 8:58:58 GMT -6
Which is not a proof because we are both writing from an university classroom. Which contains about 700 computers in 8 rooms in a 10'000 students university spread in 25 buildings. 10,000 students, 700 computers, and CSS just happened to use the exact same computer you did within 30 or so minutes. What a coincidence! He has also claimed he didn't even know you. He said he thought you lived in northern France. Where are you West? That must be a huge university to span two countries. IP Address: The specific network address of a computer on a network using TCP/IP as its networking protocol. Source: www.thetechdictionary.comTest for yourself: www.whatismyIP.comYour nose is growing.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 13, 2006 9:05:27 GMT -6
Goodness, Diane ... are we seeing another ... "liar Benteen?" I also must tell you I enjoyed the paternalistic tone of West's tome above. Nothing like a little religion--spread vigorously with a thick knife--to calm the savage beast!
Regards, LMC
|
|