| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 31 2008 : 9:28:42 PM
|
We have read so many reports describing Custer as a rash, glory seeking buffoon who thought nothing of sacrificing his men to achieve success. let's look at the real Custer. Those who chastise him the most claim that he loved nothing more than a charge. They say he was reckless, acting without thought. Right on the first count and wrong on the second.
"He was certainly the model of a light cavalry officer, quick in observation, clear in judgment, and resolute and determined in execution."
The Army of the Shenandoah fought a series of running battles. At Winchester, Virginia, on September 19, Custer respectfully refused an order by Sheridan to make a charge into a "heavily manned" enemy position.
When the rebel units "shifted" he led an attack that broke a superior force. This action describes an intelligent and pro-active approach to war that, I am sure, was the envy of men of a lesser ability.
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on July 31 2008 9:30:29 PM
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2009 : 1:57:21 PM
|
Joe,
I think the way the story has been told for so many years, it's difficult to change peoples perceptions about the myth. For some they cannot separate the facts from the myths, and refuse to believe anything but what they have been told. The facts are; there was more that wasn't told, than there was spoken of or written about, and what was, in many instances was exaggerated or told for the benefit of one or another, but not Custer. Some day the truth as they say "will out", but it will take a new generation willing to open their minds to the possibilities that did exist, than to the impossibilities that quite simply did not exist. |
  |
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2009 : 6:47:35 PM
|
How can anyone argue with the above? What a fair assessment of what may have happened as opposed to those who think they know what happened.
Benteen, correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't that all were are trying to do here; find out what really happened. Take all the information that you can find, screen it with honesty and non-preferentially treatment, then make a reasonable assumption. the worst thing one can do id to chastise those who are not afraid to think outside of the box.. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2009 : 8:53:24 PM
|
Joe you are correct in everything you say. And, I will add: Everyone should endeavor to further the discussion associated with the events in Custer's time, and realize that what we offer are in most cases "biased opinions" based upon "unsubstantiated facts". It should be our intent to discuss the battle and all things associated with the battle, not OUR personalities, or OUR psyche, nor whether or not OUR spelling, grammar or OUR thought processes qualifies US or anyone else to post.
We should all realize that there are no ’facts’ about this subject that is known, until such time as it can be proven, through civil discussion it otherwise having been demonstrated beyond a doubt to be true. Bearing in mind that what is true for one, is not always true for another, as opinions generated by the mind are as variable as the number of stars in the heavens, and for which makes good if not great discussions. If you must debate an issue with someone, read Custer Myth and learn how gentlemen did it back in Custer’s time, as there are several fine example’s there of how one should conduct oneself when confronted by an opposing view.
|
Edited by - Benteen on November 28 2009 8:57:27 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2009 : 9:09:47 PM
|
| Yes Sir, I too am from "Old School." Certain things are simply not stated between men unless both parties are facing each other, Mano Y Mano. But then, men of today have different standards I fear. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 14 2009 : 09:12:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Yes Sir, I too am from "Old School." Certain things are simply not stated between men unless both parties are facing each other, Mano Y Mano. But then, men of today have different standards I fear.
This from a man who posts as a female. What old school did you go to? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 15 2009 : 08:22:17 AM
|
| The Custer Myth is an excellent guide for common sense discussion devoid of childish comments, I certainly agree there. Heated arguments never exceeded the parameters of civility regardless of the convictions of either party. The reason? Most men treasure their pride and dignity above winning an argument. Those who do not willingly adhere to such a standard are psychologically stunted as you so admirably displayed in your recent psychoanalytical profiles. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 15 2009 : 09:09:45 AM
|
Most men treasure their pride and dignity above winning an argument.
I see no connection. In fact it is the opposite that you demonstrate. You sell out your pride and dignity when someone points out your factual errors just to maintain your argument. What pride and dignity are maintained by posting as a female?
You always divert the thread when your posts includes things that are false, misleading, or weak and are exposed. Stick to facts that are readily available. Form your own opinions and theories. Don't expect everyone to agree with you.
For example don't tell us Benteen lied when he has two versions of what he believed in the past and what he believes when asked a question at RCOI. There is no reason to plant a guidon unless you believed at the time Custer was alive.
After his look at the battlefield days after planting the guidon Benteen changed his opinion. One could argue that Martin and some Indian accounts could be used to support his opinion. Some accounts state that once fighting started it didn't last very long. Martin states in two of his interviews that the fighting started and Custer was repulsed before he saw Reno. Certainly these would consistent with an opinion that Custer was dead before Benteen got there.
Opinions and theories don't have to be correct and we can change over time. Information used to form the opinions are subject scrutiny. I happen to agree with DC on the accounts past RCOI. I still think they function as material for differing opinions and theories. The are just more likely to contain error due the length of time and other influences.
What is irritating is for you to call officers and troopers liars and cowards without proof.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2009 : 8:29:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Joe you are correct in everything you say. And, I will add: Everyone should endeavor to further the discussion associated with the events in Custer's time, and realize that what we offer are in most cases "biased opinions" based upon "unsubstantiated facts". It should be our intent to discuss the battle and all things associated with the battle, not OUR personalities, or OUR psyche, nor whether or not OUR spelling, grammar or OUR thought processes qualifies US or anyone else to post.
Absolutely! I have often posted that the biggest obstacle in divining what may have occurred in the battle is the tendency of persons to judge characters of the past by contemporaneous standards.
Warfare has been studied, dissected, evaluated, and analyzed to such a degree that it has become a science.
In Custer's day, the primary factor of substance in Indian fighting was that it more difficult to catch them then to defeat them. Hence, the driving need to surround at dawn then attack. Prior to the Rosebud, warriors always scampered rather than face a large military assault unit. The reason for doing so was very simple;protection of family. The Indians did not possess a standing army to fight their battles for them. Every Indian warrior was a father, a brother, a son, and a husband. Heavy losses in their "civilian" army was unacceptable because it would meant the death of the entire tribe.
In Custer's "time" his actions were completely reasonable and may have resulted in victory had his commanders not failed him. At the very least, withdrawal from the field, with his command intact, would have been entirely possible. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2009 : 10:09:32 PM
|
Joe,
It was the COI's failure to pursue this, had they done so, this would have been fully resolved. They knew before they ever began proceedings most of what had happened, and chose to sweep it under the rug. Now then... What is irritating az is that you have absolutely NO PROOF that they (the officers and troopers) did not lie and/or were not cowards. Single acts do not speak of an entire action, nor do mere words convey an absolute truth. They indeed are “just as likely to contain error due to… time and other influences” from day one after the battle, and “function as material for differing opinions and theories” as anything else in that battle. And as a part of that “material for differing opinions and theories” in questioning whether these men lied and/or were cowards, those “opinions and theories don’t have to be correct and we can change over time”, but only if allowed to discuss it in civility without this innocent banter that every school child should know the difference between. And when it comes to this issue, “Don’t expect everyone to agree with you.” And I strongly suggest you follow your own guidance when it comes to these words also, “Most men treasure their pride and dignity above winning an argument.” You sir are the one that can’t see the connection, because you have not opened your eyes, your ears and your mind. You are more concerned with “winning the argument” than with “treasuring your own dignity”. “You sell out your dignity when someone points out your factual errors just to maintain your argument. What dignity is maintained by posting” over and over and over again and again that someone is a woman? You must harbor some aversion to women? You must have hated your mother perhaps? Does it really matter what gender someone is, should be or can post as? AND YES, THIS IS “IRRITATING” that you constantly keep up this attack, why? Because, “You always divert the thread when your posts includes things that are false, misleading, or weak and are exposed.” “Stick to” the subject at hand. Sure, state your own opinions and theories, but for gods sake, “Don't expect everyone to agree with you.” And don’t argue your idiotic notion till hell freezes over, or you resort to the undignified practice of calling someone a woman because your loosing the argument. That sir is a LOW BLOW in anyone’s book. |
Edited by - Benteen on December 16 2009 10:30:54 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 17 2009 : 09:14:07 AM
|
Again the dynamic duo attempts to mislead regarding the proceedings of a court of inquiry. Anonymous Benteen uses COI leaving off the Reno part. Why? Does he want the uninitiated to believe it was a court of inquiry to assess the whole battle?
We can no longer excuse them due to ignorance of a court of inquiry proceeding and procedures. The process is readily available and once brought to their attention then they can do their own research. They won't because they know it will not support their positions.
Reno asked for the court of inquiry and could be represented by an attorney. The others were witnesses and could not ask questions. There should be no evidence presented that did not have an impact on Reno and his decision making. Almost everything Custer did would affect Reno. When attempting to introduce good acts by Benteen which did not affect Reno the court did not allow it.
The dynamic duo wants to us to believe that the court of inquiry was to be a broad based inquiry of the battle. It was not. Since Reno asked for it then any reasonable person could figure out that he thought he could use Custer as his defense to what he did. When he decided to request the court of inquiry the focus will be on what they think were the errors caused by in this case the commanding officer. No body should expect that Reno was there to point out all of Custer's good decisions.
The real complaint of the dynamic duo is that there was no open to the public forum such as a court to review the entire battle. Instead the Army chose not air their dirty laundry and they are not required to do so. There is plenty if evidence they did a review with the intent to make improvements. The first was immediate improvement to the carbine. Other results; ammunition improvement, marksmanship training, and horsemanship training. I am also sure to this day communications and officer actions are discussed.
The Army probably believed that years of investigations and potential court martials would not benefit the Army as much as evaluations and decisions on how to do it better.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 17 2009 : 9:42:13 PM
|
acdz, I can not speak for Benteen as he is quite capable of doing so himself. As for me, I can assure you no one is trying to "mislead" you anywhere. You are incapable of being mislead anywhere; you're already there!
Benteen, of course, is correct when he states "you have no proof" yet you argue like a $10.00 whore at Friar's convention;indestructibly,small-minded and, intangibly until your screeching dissolves into an unbearable clamor of white noise.
A noise so irritable that it may be comparable to a pulsating boil that finally comes to a red and painful head and, therefore, must be punctured to release the insufferable, constantly growing bile that finally erupts in a geyser of filth; nasty to deal with but, so satisfying when the pressure is released.
This description is how I feel when I respond to the crap you post. A festering boil that must be, unfortunately, sliced and diced until it exist no more.
You are dense, lonely, addle, or suffering from some unclassified brain disease to not even realize that you have been ignored for quite sometime now by both of us. Still you on, and on, and on, and on, and on. Again, I can not speak for Benteen but, I honestly believe that he posted the above because your inane/insane accusations of transsexual deviation has become so thoroughly sickening that he is astounded how you go on and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on. Get the picture; boring!
Ironically, absolutely no one on this planet gives a whit about your "Joe Wiggs allegation's/information but you and your daddy.
Still you co on, and on, and on, and on...Oh well, I think even you get the message by now. Sadly, many people are too thin skinned to deal with vermin like you. Your tenacity to slander and demean overwhelms them and they go elsewhere. You and your brother have, effectively, destroyed this forum. Somehow I know this makes you and you son deliriously happy.
Every time you are pressed, you respond with a slur, unsubstantiated accusation, or a questionable joke to create a smoke screen to evade the real issues. This tactic is as old as the beginning of the art of debating and, utilized by the idiotic every since.
I have responded to the blistering boil on my butt, I have punctured it, and now I enjoy the blessed relief this critical action has provided me. Benteen and I will continue to engage in intellectual and open discussions and you will continue to puke a voluminous amount of "Joe Wiggs" is masquerading as a girl all over the forum.
Benteen and I will continue to ignore your dissertations until such time a new boil needs to be punctured. And so life goes on and on and on and on and on and on...darn, there I go again. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 18 2009 : 09:30:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
acdz, I can not speak for Benteen as he is quite capable of doing so himself. As for me, I can assure you no one is trying to "mislead" you anywhere. You are incapable of being mislead anywhere; you're already there!
Benteen, of course, is correct when he states "you have no proof" yet you argue like a $10.00 whore at Friar's convention;indestructibly,small-minded and, intangibly until your screeching dissolves into an unbearable clamor of white noise.
A noise so irritable that it may be comparable to a pulsating boil that finally comes to a red and painful head and, therefore, must be punctured to release the insufferable, constantly growing bile that finally erupts in a geyser of filth; nasty to deal with but, so satisfying when the pressure is released.
This description is how I feel when I respond to the crap you post. A festering boil that must be, unfortunately, sliced and diced until it exist no more.
You are dense, lonely, addle, or suffering from some unclassified brain disease to not even realize that you have been ignored for quite sometime now by both of us. Still you on, and on, and on, and on, and on. Again, I can not speak for Benteen but, I honestly believe that he posted the above because your inane/insane accusations of transsexual deviation has become so thoroughly sickening that he is astounded how you go on and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on. Get the picture; boring!
Ironically, absolutely no one on this planet gives a whit about your "Joe Wiggs allegation's/information but you and your daddy.
Still you co on, and on, and on, and on...Oh well, I think even you get the message by now. Sadly, many people are too thin skinned to deal with vermin like you. Your tenacity to slander and demean overwhelms them and they go elsewhere. You and your brother have, effectively, destroyed this forum. Somehow I know this makes you and you son deliriously happy.
Every time you are pressed, you respond with a slur, unsubstantiated accusation, or a questionable joke to create a smoke screen to evade the real issues. This tactic is as old as the beginning of the art of debating and, utilized by the idiotic every since.
I have responded to the blistering boil on my butt, I have punctured it, and now I enjoy the blessed relief this critical action has provided me. Benteen and I will continue to engage in intellectual and open discussions and you will continue to puke a voluminous amount of "Joe Wiggs" is masquerading as a girl all over the forum.
Benteen and I will continue to ignore your dissertations until such time a new boil needs to be punctured. And so life goes on and on and on and on and on and on...darn, there I go again.
The only way you can speak for Benteen is if you are that person which some have posted that they believe you are. Since you never made it as a Marine then could not possibly see how much of an amateur you are at attempts to insult. Didn't you receive training as an officer on how to control yourself. Another indication that you are not always what you claim to be.
Joe here below is what you posted. There is also a post from the moderator that revealed the hidden email. Its you Joe Wiggs. Then in a demonstration of your superior police skills you posted that you were mad that she revealed that Joe Wiggs was the female poster Pohanka. Nothing like providing a collaborating statement. Especially by the suspect.
Name: pohanka
Email: hidden
Birthday: 01/09/1948
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 45
Date Registered: May 10, 2008, 2:11pm
Funny how Boston disappeared from the other board. Maybe a little fear on the email address.
Joe apparently you don't know the difference between someone posting misleading posts and someone pointing out what is misleading in your posts.
Joe if you want to look at comments made then let's do it. Except from calling you misleading, making false statements, and calling you a liar. Show us the statements made by me that you refer too. I will provide the supporting statements to show that you lied.
For example we can look at when you lied and said you never posted as a female. We could look at your perverted statement to expose yourself to prove you were not female.
See Benteen states he wants to defend that you can post as female if you want. Does he also want to defend that you should lie about being that poster. Does he support your perversion statement to expose yourself? If Benteen is you than maybe.
Apparently you are not ignoring my post you just don't have a valid position to defend and just as I pointed previously you launch a tirade that has nothing to do with the thread.
You think that you are not exposed as misleading if you don't respond to a post that challenges your facts? You are the one providing all the material needed to post a rebuttal to yours. You don't need to respond if it is correct.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 18 2009 : 09:43:04 AM
|
AZ
What is irritating AZ is that you have absolutely NO PROOF that they (the officers and troopers) did not lie and/or were not cowards. Single acts do not speak of an entire action, nor do mere words convey an absolute truth. They indeed are “just as likely to contain error due to… time and other influences” from day one after the battle, and “function as material for differing opinions and theories” as anything else in that battle. And as a part of that “material for differing opinions and theories” in questioning whether these men lied and/or were cowards, those “opinions and theories don’t have to be correct and we can change over time”, but only if allowed to discuss it in civility without this innocent banter that every school child should know the difference between. And when it comes to this issue, “Don’t expect everyone to agree with you.” And I strongly suggest you follow your own guidance when it comes to these words also, “Most men treasure their pride and dignity above winning an argument.” You sir are the one that can’t see the connection, because you have not opened your eyes, your ears and your mind. You are more concerned with “winning the argument” than with “treasuring your own dignity”. “You sell out your dignity when someone points out your factual errors just to maintain your argument. What dignity is maintained by posting” over and over and over again and again that someone is a woman? You must harbor some aversion to women? You must have hated your mother perhaps? Does it really matter what gender someone is, should be or can post as? AND YES, THIS IS “IRRITATING” that you constantly keep up this attack, why? Because, “You always divert the thread when your posts includes things that are false, misleading, or weak and are exposed.” “Stick to” the subject OF THIS THREAD. Sure, state your own opinions and theories about THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD, but for gods sake, “Don't expect everyone to agree with you.” And don’t argue your idiotic notion till hell freezes over ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD, or you resort to the undignified practice of calling someone a woman because you're loosing the argument. That sir is a LOW BLOW in anyone’s book.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 18 2009 : 1:26:22 PM
|
AZ
What is irritating AZ is that you have absolutely NO PROOF that they (the officers and troopers) did not lie and/or were not cowards.
Sorry I thought we all lived in the United States. I should have known that you feel everyone starts out as a liar and needs to clear their name? You have gone beyond ridiculous when you ask for proof that someone is not a liar or coward. It is presumed that someone is not a liar or even a coward in my part of the country.
You miss the whole point of Joe as a female poster or you are Joe. You will find most of Joe's different personalities here also. Why did Joe have to lie that it was not him? Because he needed support for his positions. He chose a female for whatever support that gender might bring to him in his mind. It the liar part of his identities and how he tried to use them that is wrong.
The rest of your post is gibberish to me. You mix comments made by Joe the poster with mine and don't distinguish the difference. Show me my statements that you disagree with and I will defend them or correct them if wrong.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on December 18 2009 2:00:49 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 18 2009 : 2:34:59 PM
|
quote:
quote:
What is irritating AZ is that you have absolutely NO PROOF that they (the officers and troopers) did not lie and/or were not cowards.
Sorry I thought we all lived in the United States. I should have known that you feel everyone starts out as a liar and needs to clear their name? You have gone beyond ridiculous when you ask for proof that someone is not a liar or coward. It is presumed that someone is not a liar or even a coward in my part of the country.
You miss the whole point of Joe as a female poster or you are Joe. You will find most of Joe's different personalities here also. Why did Joe have to lie that it was not him? Because he needed support for his positions. He chose a female for whatever support that gender might bring to him in his mind. It the liar part of his identities and how he tried to use them that is wrong.
And since when did someone’s wrongful perceptions about another’s gender identity become lying? In your mind, to you, may causes of gender identity support whatever a female chooses. But this is far from the truth as any female would tell you. And it isn’t me who is missing the “whole point” here, its you. If you think for a moment there is power and truth to the words you just spoke, then put on that dress, high heels, pantyhose, lipstick, and walk out that door and lets see you pose. Or better yet, make up an alias here or anywhere you choose and make sure it’s a female character, and let see YOU do what you are saying Joe is supposedly doing here. And lets see if anyone, and I do mean ANYONE gives a damn. Besides, I would think you would learn something in the process, something that is truly lacking in your frangible brain right now, because to “pull it off” requires something you don’t have, never will have, and cant ever fathom, and it has nothing - absolutely nothing to do with your physical appearance and everything to do with thought processes and feelings.
And as far as pulling that “living in the US S**t, you know better. This isn’t a court of law. And even if it was, how does one suppose that they prosecute those “under suspicion”, does the term “investigation” come to mind Sherlock? And how is one suppose to “investigate” it if you don’t ask the frackin questions? So don’t pull that US or law mumbo jumbo crap on me. And no, I haven’t gone “beyond the ridiculous” and you know it, when I ask you to prove that they were NOT liars or cowards. Because you cannot. And because you cannot, means that there is a distinct possibility that they were. And if in your part of the country “it is presumed that someone is not a liar”, I would suggest that Joe move there, just to prove you wrong again. God man, you cant have it both ways, you’ve worked your way into this lonely dark corner, now try as you might, you’re just not going to get out are you? Quick someone get a net before he gets away... |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 18 2009 : 4:48:36 PM
|
| You may be the biggest jerk on the planet. I would love to meet you and tell that to your face. I promise I won't wear my heels. I can not help but wonder if you would talk as much silly smack as you write? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 19 2009 : 4:46:03 PM
|
And since when did someone’s wrongful perceptions about another’s gender identity become lying?
When Joe posted it was not him. That is a lie. He even stated he would expose himself to prove it.
It has nothing to do with perception or being anonymous. There was a noted similarity in style similar to Joe's. When accused he stated that it was not him and he was not posting as a female.
If that's not proof of a lie than reads Joe's posts where he admits he lied.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on December 19 2009 4:48:05 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 19 2009 : 4:49:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
You may be the biggest jerk on the planet. I would love to meet you and tell that to your face. I promise I won't wear my heels. I can not help but wonder if you would talk as much silly smack as you write?
Are you threatening me Joe? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 19 2009 : 5:39:19 PM
|
And as far as pulling that “living in the US S**t, you know better. This isn’t a court of law. And even if it was, how does one suppose that they prosecute those “under suspicion”, does the term “investigation” come to mind Sherlock?
Well at least we know you're not a attorney. Usually the investigation is over before the prosecution begins. If you want to apply your standard than does that make everything you say a lie unless you can prove it. Who sets the standard to determine sufficient proof?
Even if you want to use your standard I don't accept it and will challenge you or anyone else if they don't have supporting evidence. Someone should defend dead soldiers from posters making false accusations.
There is nothing that could not be discussed that errors and opinions can not cover. So if you argue Wallace's time is not correct, hard to believe, or right on then there is no problem. When someone states he lied under oath then it is a court proceeding and subject to perjury. Except the soldier is dead and can not defend himself.
What the dynamic duo wants is a conspiracy evolving many persons. For Wallace they want him to have lied at RCOI. They offer no proof of a statement made under oath being a lie. Yet since Wallace should have recorded times as they occurred it would easy to look at his log and see if he recorded them or did he change them. The times he recorded were published in early 1877. So approximately 2 years have passed and when he reads them at RCOI it part of a conspiracy.
Custer was alive when Wallace should have recorded the time he states he recorded near the divide. There could be no conspiracy started before Custer died. So it would seem a proof of a lie could be presented to show the time was not recorded or it was changed. If the time as published is not what others feel is correct then it could be an error. There is plenty of discussion room on whether his watch was accurate. An error makes Wallace human. Falsification makes him dishonest which should require proof of his intent.
An yes I am proud of living in the USA where one is innocent until proved guilty. It is a good standard to live by in my opinion.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2009 : 10:37:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
You may be the biggest jerk on the planet. I would love to meet you and tell that to your face. I promise I won't wear my heels. I can not help but wonder if you would talk as much silly smack as you write?
Are you threatening me Joe?
Of course not, just stating what I believe to be true. It has been my experience that individuals who are overly prone to "
insult" others from a distance are not so prone to do so face to face. Don't you agree? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2009 : 11:43:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
You may be the biggest jerk on the planet. I would love to meet you and tell that to your face. I promise I won't wear my heels. I can not help but wonder if you would talk as much silly smack as you write?
Are you threatening me Joe?
Of course not, just stating what I believe to be true. It has been my experience that individuals who are overly prone to "
insult" others from a distance are not so prone to do so face to face. Don't you agree?
It must have been awhile since you have worked with drunks. If you look at my posts I don't call you the kind of names and make tirades that you do. If so please point one out to me. Calling anyone a liar while providing evidence to support your positionis different don't you think? Challenging someones statements is different.
Since you must have testified as an officer did you have trouble with confronting defendants and basically calling them a liar? Without plea bargaining I have never gone to a trial where the defendant changes his mind and says "you're right I am guilty".
So basically how does it apply here. When you state "Why did Wallace lie?" that assumes he lied and all you need is the motive. If you posted Did Wallace lie? than it allows opinions on both sides supported by any proof provided.
What I don't accept is that it OK to start with the assumption that someone lied. As a former officer you would know what you think and what you can prove are two different things. The latter requires a finding of fact based upon evidence and the former is opinion. Seems to me you were offended by the Press statements about your former Department. If they were unfounded how is that different than posting "Why did Wallace lie?" Neither are statements made in a court room. Both are public statements.
Basically since my family has served in the military with the youngest in Marine Corps boot camp today I find posts against military personal regarding their veracity or courage without proof offensive.
Likewise with proof I would support you in your effort to out liars and/or cowards.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2009 : 12:15:49 PM
|
| Spend more time with issues rather than character assignations and I can assure you that your efforts will then be far more appreciated. I speak for those who are simply tired of the direction the forum has headed of late. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
The Maligned Custer
