|
Post by edavids on Aug 5, 2016 16:50:45 GMT -6
David, Most accounts have 3 crow Scouts firing into the village on the ridge just below MTC, I don't think Boyer was there. Regards, Tom Even better! Maybe they were outing Custer! ;-).
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 6, 2016 10:21:53 GMT -6
I do not find it surprising that two people who rarely approach these matters, after careful consideration of what they say, or elude to, would say, repeat, or point to what someone wrote, but this defies rational thought. You two are kidding aren't you? Please tell me that you are both smarter than to believe such nonsense.
As to the Weibert book. Obviously he is your source, but what is his source? Did you check his footnotes or bibliography. How did he get to the story in the first place? Had you said --- This is what Weibert has to say on the subject, but/and looking at his sourcing I find them reliable/unreliable/unsourced/made up/good/bad/indifferent - that which is posted would at least be put in some sort of context.
We are talking about premeditated murder in this story. Does it stand to reason that such a premeditated act would be carried out, as David says, with no exit plan, WHEN Boyer had been near both of the Custer brothers for a few weeks, which in all probability presented more than a sufficient number of opportunities to commit the act or acts , and get clean away, with little chance of ever being discovered. People who wish to commit an irrational act such as murder, do not necessarily leave all of their rationality in the closet, especially in the planning phase of the act.
I am afraid both of you, for different reasons, are disappointing, when it comes to serious scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Aug 6, 2016 12:47:35 GMT -6
I do not find it surprising that two people who rarely approach these matters, after careful consideration of what they say, or elude to, would say, repeat, or point to what someone wrote, but this defies rational thought. You two are kidding aren't you? Please tell me that you are both smarter than to believe such nonsense. As to the Weibert book. Obviously he is your source, but what is his source? Did you check his footnotes or bibliography. How did he get to the story in the first place? Had you said --- This is what Weibert has to say on the subject, but/and looking at his sourcing I find them reliable/unreliable/unsourced/made up/good/bad/indifferent - that which is posted would at least be put in some sort of context. We are talking about premeditated murder in this story. Does it stand to reason that such a premeditated act would be carried out, as David says, with no exit plan, WHEN Boyer had been near both of the Custer brothers for a few weeks, which in all probability presented more than a sufficient number of opportunities to commit the act or acts , and get clean away, with little chance of ever being discovered. People who wish to commit an irrational act such as murder, do not necessarily leave all of their rationality in the closet, especially in the planning phase of the act. I am afraid both of you, for different reasons, are disappointing, when it comes to serious scholarship. Why dont you knock off your sanctimonious crap Quincannon. I was informing a fellow poster (Horse) that there was another author who also put some credence in the Mitch Boyer story, I never implied in any way that I agreed with it. In fact I think it is utter nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 6, 2016 12:54:47 GMT -6
QC: Did you notice the word "silly" I used in my post? Just wanted to point out one of many "theories" put out over the year regarding Custer's Death . . . most are just that "Silly".
And I do take scholarship seriously . . . I surely do . . . but I also get a kick out of all the idiocy put out by Custer Lovers and Haters.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 6, 2016 13:33:51 GMT -6
Yes Benteen you were informing a fellow poster. I do understand that.
What you obviously do not understand is what I wrote in the second paragraph about putting context into what you wrote. It is the exact same thing that you did with the Lawrence thing earlier this year at another place. You throw some crap out there, without any commentary one way or the other, and you invariably get your ass handed to you, not for the throwing out but the failure to put the thing you throw out into some manner of context. That is you fault, not the bringing up the matter in the first place.
I actually find parts of what Weibert wrote fairly reliable. This part however is nonsense and should be labeled as such.
The impression you leave is that you do not have an opinion, and anything that is in a book must be true. If you do have an opinion express it, and everything in print is not true. If you thought it nonsense why did you not say so? Grow a pair or grow up, and I do not care which one you choose.
Crazy Horse. What I found disappointing is that you threw it out in the first place. You are better than that.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 6, 2016 15:08:19 GMT -6
Once again I am shattered Peepants. Oh pray tell me how I may gain your approval, so that I might aspire to be your BFF. Be gentle now, my feelings are so easily hurt.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 6, 2016 19:38:03 GMT -6
Oh Peepants, say it isn't so. You mean we cannot be BFF's ever?
Probably the only thing you have ever been right about in your miserable life is that I am who I am and I am not prone to change. The fact that it obviously irritates you is a plus mark for me, as far as I am concerned.
Irritating Benteen is another matter altogether. I have not one thing in the world against his humanity. His fault as I see it is never wanting to stand up to anyone, never offering his own opinion on anything the slightest bit controversial, for fear that opinion may give offense, in short taking on the characteristics of a wet dishrag in the expression of his views. I was actually encouraged by his stance against me today. It shows me that the right stuff lies beneath, and I did not take offense. More importantly though, in so doing continually skews the subject in question by posting something, with no back up or expressed opinion and letting it lay there, for anyone who comes along to see, absorb and think or take as fact.
He is also the most superficial person on this planet. I do not know the cause, but it seems everything he reads he takes as gospel, as if the whole world were smarter than he is, and those that put something in print, twice again as smart. That is a problem of self esteem, and there is not one thing anyone can do about that to help him if he is unwilling to help himself.
He is also a boot licker, which relates to what I said above. He is as good as any man, but remains on his knees when the proper place is on his feet, standing tall, not for what he might wish he was, but standing tall for what he is. He may be the only boot in Marine Corps History that believed his drill instructor's calling him a maggot was true.
I have been down this same street with him long before you made you malevolent presence here or elsewhere. He knew exactly what I was saying to him, just as he has always known when I have said it to him before. I don't blame him at all for getting irritated at me. He has ample cause. What I wish he would do is change, and change for the better. I have diminishing hopes in that regard, and I cannot help but be disappointed. He can rest assured though that I will continue to hold him to a high standard, and will not hesitate one second to turn over his hole card.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 6, 2016 20:50:05 GMT -6
The second thing you have been right about today Peepants. That may be a new record for you.
You are correct. I am his witness, and stand ready to bear witness at any time any place, publicly here. privately by PM, or if he so desires by phonecon. He may get my number from Tom or AZ, both have it, or he may PM me for it. I will gladly talk to him about this subject or any other he so desires, until the Second Coming of Christ Almighty if that is how long it takes for both of us to make our positions perfectly clear, and hopefully reach some mutual understanding. I shall await either his questions on any criticism he may have of me regarding my stance.
For now though, you butt your silly ass out. This is no longer any of your goddamned business.
Noli Me Tangere
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Aug 6, 2016 21:50:16 GMT -6
The second thing you have been right about today Peepants. That may be a new record for you. You are correct. I am his witness, and stand ready to bear witness at any time any place, publicly here. privately by PM, or if he so desires by phonecon. He may get my number from Tom or AZ, both have it, or he may PM me for it. I will gladly talk to him about this subject or any other he so desires, until the Second Coming of Christ Almighty if that is how long it takes for both of us to make our positions perfectly clear, and hopefully reach some mutual understanding. I shall await either his questions on any criticism he may have of me regarding my stance. For now though, you butt your silly ass out. This is no longer any of your goddamned business. Noli Me Tangere
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Aug 6, 2016 22:01:50 GMT -6
I think we are going too far in the direction of attacking a poster, vice the post.
Now, I am no angel. I have crossed that line before.
But attacking Dan is like a Trump attack against anyone who does not agree with him. You are personally abusing a person who has never failed to treat fellow posters with dignity and respect.
I am happy to address varying opinions based on specific posts. I do not want to discuss whether the poster is a valuable human being, or some pond scum. Pequod lives in the attack the poster, not the post universe. Chuck, I recommend you do not follow him down that rabbit hole.
And I mean no disrespect to Quincannon nor Pequod, their posts show their approach.
This board has been boring for at last a year, happy to discuss issues relevant to the battle. But tired of insulting folks, would rather we have a sane, competent discussion.
(In case you missed it, many Republican leaders use that term to discuss who we should vote for in this election. Language matters, as is how you discuss a topic.)
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 6, 2016 22:10:41 GMT -6
Will you and I can discuss this at a later date. For now though, you know exactly what I am trying to do with Benteen.
I meant what I said, but I also respect him as a human being. I cannot and I will not hold back how I feel, in hopes of a better day. It is not what he posts, nor has it anything to do with him not treating me or anyone else I know of with the greatest respect. It is how he goes about his posts, and the damage those methods cause here to a pursuit of truth, and that is what it has always been about.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 7, 2016 1:22:57 GMT -6
But attacking Dan is like a Trump attack against anyone who does not agree with him. You are personally abusing a person who has never failed to treat fellow posters with dignity and respect. I'm in full agreement with the above observation. Dan has my full support.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 7, 2016 13:46:45 GMT -6
QC: I "threw it out" to show the wide range of opinions, views, conspiracies, inuendoes and all the other stuff, factual, possible, probable, impossible, improbable, unintelligible, stupid, silly, etc., involved with Custer and the LBH.
One thing I have learned regarding this battle is to look at everyone's opinion on what took place, even the crazy theories because you can't tell the winners and losers without a program. The more you read, and yes, books like Combs, the more you determine what's worth reading or not and the more you can poke holes in someone's views and/or agenda.
PS: Thanks for "better than that" comment.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 7, 2016 14:15:41 GMT -6
You are welcome and it is deserved.
Silly saved the day. A one word opinion of a tale told about a man who died for his country being labeled an assassin, accused of murder, and to top it off high treason in lending aid and comfort. Yes, one word, a decisive dismissal, was all that was necessary and right.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 7, 2016 16:11:41 GMT -6
A briefcase for a Dead Custer The key to the battle is the tactical relationship between Keogh and Custer. The fact that the two battalions fought independent actions no more than 500 metres apart with neither showing any evdience of organised resistance nor any tactical cooperation suggests a catastrophic collaspe and disintegration of the two battalions. If there is such a thing as a military crash then Battle ridge is a prime example. Are there any soldiers on the board of any rank who if given 3 minutes could not do a better job than either Keogh or Custer. It looks to me that Custer is hors de combat with Keogh some distance back [to avoid a pileup at the crossing]not knowing what has happend. Tom and Yates with a dead or dying Custer pull back towards the ridge with Keogh not knowing what the call is . It is in this state of confusion that the command are run to ground and destroyed .
|
|