| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 07 2005 : 12:33:31 AM
|
Poll Question:
OK, in the spirit of Survivor, let us hear from the members about other posters who they would rather have leave or drastically change their habits. Only one vote per member is allowed.
Billy
|
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on May 07 2005 12:41:14 AM
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 07 2005 : 12:38:42 AM
|
In the spirit of the question, I voted against myself.
Billy |
  |
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - May 07 2005 : 12:42:03 PM
|
I voted for myself as well.
Difficult to contribute because I am waaaaay waaaaaay behind everyone.
But I wish we could stick to the topics more !! |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 12 2005 : 1:15:58 PM
|
*sigh*
Paulie, you haven't gotten any smarter in the past four days than you were before, I am afraid to say.
You do realize that when I close the poll, I am going to have Rich toss out all instances where the same IP address voted multiple times don't you? You don't? Surprise, surprise!
Later,
Billy |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 12 2005 : 6:20:14 PM
|
Billy--
I was kind of hoping we could vote ourselves all off this durn island and hop to the nearest civilisation that provides a nice cantina ... and to quote Jeff Probst:
"Survivors ready?" |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 13 2005 : 10:17:29 AM
|
Simply amazing! My lead increased by 11 votes with the last vote at 5:05, five hours ago. Coincidentally, Paulie was logged in 5 hours ago. Nah, I am too suspicious.
LMAO,
Billy
P.S. Paulie, rather than voting multiple times, why don't you endeavor to prove "that as a matter of practical combat, the Spencer stopped Pickett's Charge." |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 13 2005 : 8:52:41 PM
|
| Hi, I've been gone for awhile. I voted "other." My reasoning being that no one should be voted off. Every member of this forum has, at one time or another, contributed much. While I do not agree with some of the tactics used, I accept them as part of the personality of the contributor. This rationale is not in the "spirit" of the survivor show, which would make me a lousy participant. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 13 2005 : 10:40:53 PM
|
Joe--
I'm getting kind of tired of the battles going on around here. I mean, what are conflicting Custer/Gettysburg rantings compared to the acquisition of world peace? I enjoy (well, not all the time) most folks' postings, though I should prefer that topics stay on subject and not devolve into personal editorials about literature, etc.,
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 13 2005 : 11:07:35 PM
|
quote:
BJ: Now let me see if I understand this correctly? You want to get me off the board so I don't irritate you and a number of others (4) so you can be undisturbed while you congratualte each other on your superiority in various fields? You, in unchallenged research! And the belittlement of superior emerging weapons in the civil war! DC, the 3% man, in Victorian rhetoric! wILD1 in speculative invalid US and English hate! Larsen in false facts, or their ignoring thereof! Possibly a couple of fellow travelers.
Not exactly. I want you to quit being an asshole, especially when wrong.
This entire deal devolved when you posted the absurdity that the Spencer stopped Pickett's Charge. Rather than finding FACTS such as which Union infantry regiments were armed with Spencer rifles and were on Cemetery Ridge July 3, 1863, you began your usual "ranting and raving" tactics in hopes that it would distract from the original question. You accept no responsibility for stating, from what I can ascertain, a factual lie. There lies our problem. I could give a rat's ass whether you stay on the board or not. I just do not do revisionist history!
Now, to read beyond the first sentence of your screed....
I am unchallenged in research by only one person and that is you Paulie. You haven't done more than look at web sites. I did, admittedly, take a stand on something that I had not researched but to my credit, I posted the information, from a web site, which effectively scuttled my own argument. Not selective posting whatsoever, just blurting out opinion without checking the facts, which I think you are even more guilty of than I.
I haven't run to Rich. If you are not adult enough to maintain yourself, how in the hell is Rich going to help? If you are referring to the IP addresses, Rich is the only one who has access to such data. It is called being a "System Administrator."
Paulie, I will take your word that I yelled on three previous occasions. With only 10 minutes of work, I found multiple (well in excess of three) occurrences were you did the same. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Ahhhh, the standard Paulie trick...divert attention by sceaming "fire" such as in the statement about "sexual abuse as a child." Yes, Paulie, I was abused as a child-the parents told me if I didn't straighten up I would grow up to be as big an asshole as Paul Cross. If that ain't abuse, nothing else is!
*smooch*
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 14 2005 : 10:03:52 PM
|
Paul and Billy,
You both represent the epitome of knowledge, worthy contributions, and leadership to this forum. My admiration for both of you is sincere and genuine. I personally need for you two to call a truce and continue to lead this forum in the positive direction that I have long admired.
I know I can not speak for the rest of the forum, but in my heart I know that the vast majority of us need both of you to be here for us. Paul, thank you for being here when I needed you most. Billy, thank you for your support and your wonderful contributions. Bhist, we miss you and El Crab. In a world of chaos, turmoil , and inconsistency, I do not hesitate to call each of you, "FRIEND." |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 14 2005 : 10:16:18 PM
|
Joe, thanks for the expression of "friend" and believe me, it is reciprocated (even if I do like to poke fun at you now and then 
OK, as far as Paulie is concerned, my thoughts are that anyone who goes into a argument concerning historical matters, especially ones filled with controversy, without some documentation to support their stance is SOL. (Yes Paulie, I am using acronyms again....look it up on Google). Personally, I think Paul is an asshole, but he has brought, occasionally, a neat perspective on things. However, as I said before, I just don't do revisionist history.
But, it takes two to tango and I am not going to quit until he rephrases his position re: the Spencer at Gettysburg (do you really want me to quote it again?).
Joe, thanks for being there.
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 14 2005 : 10:23:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
Joe--
though I should prefer that topics stay on subject and not devolve into personal editorials about literature, etc.,
Hoka hey!
"Hoha Hey" three thousand times my friend. There is so much to learn, so many issues to discuss, and innumerable "what ifs" to
contemplate regarding the Big Horn Battle. The serious and heated debate between forum members remind me of an old Indian tale.
"A grizzly bear and a badger lay dead. The ground, trees, and grasses all around them showed signs of a great struggle, a battle to the death. But it was the dead combatants that fascinated the hunter. The badger's jaws were still clamped to the bear's snout; thus they were locked together forever."
My personal moral of this tale: In the final analysis, no one won; they both lost. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 17 2005 : 11:38:41 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Actually Joe is being far too kind in referring to you as a "friend"! And BJ, I could never be as big a asshole as you are with your phony pretend friendships and your pious attempts to be a "official researcher"!
Your selective posting and then pretend, I straightened that out, is laughable to anyone who reads. As far as my statement the Spencer practically stopped Picketts charge because of it's part in the prior battles on the heights setting Custer up for his charge against Stuarts Cavalry! Thus the Spencer set up the defeat of the cavalry in turn leading to the defeat of Pickett! As I have stated before it is my opinion and one I am not alone in! In fact, this almost same, but not quite, statement was on one of your citations. I have no intention of re-stating my position because this is the one I have maintained and everyone is entitled to their position whether you like or not, foul mouth!
I know you are not an educated man! But surely even you can see the line of logic. I also know the real reason for your rage is I have questioned your credentials as a researcher. And yes, I caught you selectively posting while pretending to be impartial!
You are a PHONY RESEARCHER! I warn everyone on the board about your posted citations as they are always very suspect, in my opinion! If you want to become enraged and try to get me kicked off the board go ahead. We both know what this is about, a researcher who will compromise himself to make an argument! And you have been caught BIG TIME!
*Yawn*
Only one thing is deserving of comment. You did not originally nor, until now, ever say the Spencer "practically" stopped Pickett's Charge. You said, "...in a matter of practical combat, the Spencer stopped Pickett's Charge."
quote:
Posted - April 10 2005 : 2:21:59 PM
BJ: It has been my understanding that Custer turned down the position offered at West Point, could be wrong though. Do you have a cite?
As a matter of plain practical combat, the Spencer rifle stopped Pickett's charge and in the long run actually turned the war for the Union.
*smooch*
Billy |
Edited by - BJMarkland on May 17 2005 11:49:28 AM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 17 2005 : 5:56:54 PM
|
All right--
This tiff has gone on waaay too long. Should we draw pistols? Lighten up!
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 18 2005 : 09:25:20 AM
|
For me it's like this. You have the fact and file people that tell you to f... oops, where to go, and always retort with source please? And then you have the research group, this includes most amateurs people as well. The difference between the two is a stark contrast to what it should be. Why?
Because in the first place alot of "facts" about this battle and the events leading up to it have been corrupted, either by the participants for one reason or another, or the shoddy research done after the battle, or the coverup by various factions for one reason or another, or if you will by time itself. When someone throws "just the facts", or "source please" in my face it's an insult, there are no solid facts. No one has all the answers, no one. Or we wouldn't be here discussing this, would we?
Then you have the research group. Whether or not someone is a "professional researcher" is up for debate. It doesn't matter how long someone has been at this, it still doesn't give them the right to claim that status. There are no graduate courses I know of that offer The Little Big Horn battle as a major or minor field of study. So no, no one is more professional than another. We are whether we like to admit it or not, amatuers.
What it all boils down to is this. The "fact and file" group relys upon the "old records", and thus nothing new can ever be found or put forth as truth to them. It's the same story that was written over 125 years ago. The facts may be different but their conclusions are always the same. Ie. "just the [distorted] facts", or "source please", see what I mean?
The other group trys to put forth evidence that could be valid. And in most cases the "facts" faction beats this idealism down by insult and innuendo, saying you guessed it, "just the facts", and "source please?"
Perhaps the worst group is one that combines the two. They are the ones who knows for sure just what happened, they have all the answers, and it is only their views and opinions that count. They can quote verse and source like scripture and then have the audacity by some whimsical notion of saying that they are professional researchers because they have done this or that! Hmmm... lets see I wonder what university or college gave them their diploma on the Battle of the Little Big Horn? Whether they like it or not, they are the worst group of all. Why? Because their notions are based off of "ancient [corrupted]information and sources." And virtually everyone else is dead wrong because they know, we don't know how they know, but somehow, they know? Mystery and wonder ~ and when it comes right down to the nitty gritty they tell you to what? "Find it yourself!"
I have been humbled by my experiences with this project. Over the years I have watched this scene play out over web forums and live forums alike, and it's always the same. Professionals, bah humbug! There is not one person that can claim this title, be he or she author, champion of causes one way or another, or just plain old me and you! When it comes to this battle no one is. Perhaps the archaeological professionals have the right to claim something, and then that is even regarded as suspect, because of "evidence tampering" by untold generations.
I see alot of people within the structure I have outlined, and perhaps there are a few more, but if you really take a good look at it, I think you will find your person in one of the catagories described above. Extremism will get you nowhere with me! And that extremism is called, "professional", whether implied, or to their warped thoughts and expressions, real.
I almost forgot, age sometimes isn't kind! If it was left up to me, I personally would vote off anyone and everyone that claims that they are any kind of "professional" when it comes to this battle. And along with them, the "just the fact" and "source please" group! The only group that has any legitimite right here is the one who claims that they are an amatuer researcher with theorys on what may be right? And unfortunatly we may never know the truth even from such offical sources as the national archives, because who knows whether they were corrupted in some government scheme to keep things, just the way they are. I strongly believe that there is more to the story than what was put forth over a 125 years ago and maintained by the so called "professionals." And we can only find that if we are willing to not let personal insults and innuendo's get in our way. |
Edited by - Benteen on May 18 2005 09:48:04 AM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 18 2005 : 11:31:14 AM
|
hmmm...
OK, first, Benteen. To my knowledge, no one on this board is a self-proclaimed "official researcher" for the board or battle. That is just Paulie's obfuscation of the original argument between the two of us. If by chance, that was directed at me, just know that:
a) I really don't give a hoot about the minutia of the LBH per se, I am more interested in other facets of the Indian Wars and consider LBH just one event of a long and tragic period of our history.
b) I have access to archival repositories not everyone is fortunate to live near, if I can look something up for someone, so what?
c) The argument between us is not even about LBH.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 18 2005 : 11:53:07 AM
|
Paulie, you still are attempting to obfuscate the real issue, your errant claim about the Spencer's importance in stopping Pickett's Charge. So, you now claim it that Gregg's & Custer's charge stopping Lee & Hampton's men stopped Pickett's Charge? Read Stuart's report on why he was so far from the main battle. He states, and I paraphrase, that he was to attack the retreating Union forces when they began to fall back after Pickett's Charge. I would tell you the link to find it but that would be to easy. It is on the Web and I have posted the main link before.
Paulie, you speak an awful lot about other people's negatives, especially when they disagree with you. Despite my lack of education, shall I spend ten minutes finding all the love notes you wrote about my research skills when the results improved your arguments? I am still attempting to figure out what you meant by selective posting in that the link I posted proved your argument and disproved mine regarding the number of Spencers purchased during the CW.
Later,
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 23 2005 : 1:04:18 PM
|
"Actually, I had been quite impressed with your research up till the time I started coming across implemented target practice regulations after the civil war. I really wondered why you had not come up with them, when I, a far lesser researcher had started running across enacted regulations in a number of places. When I cited them I noticed you did not fall all over yourself to find any supporting facts."
Actually, I have found the 1862 regulations, and mentioned that at various times. I found that while looking up stuff for the Springfield carbine and its deficiencies, not because I was looking specifically for it. You are the one who has the dog in the fight with DC regarding target practice, not I. Now if you want me to look up stuff, just let me know. I usually look up things to further my research project or if something I have read has me curious. However, I do perform look-ups upon request as most know.
Billy |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Who Should Be Voted Off the Island
