| Author |
 Topic  |
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 12 2004 : 03:19:34 AM
|
| Well, I view it as both a British defeat and a Zulu victory. And I want more than just the Brit side of things. But it is a British defeat, and I view it as such. That's not to say the Zulu didn't win and do so in convincing fashion. Its not to denigrate their victory. But when an entire force is wiped out, its generally viewed as a devastating defeat. The draw itself is the annihilation of the defeated side, rather than the victorious one. I think a lot of it has to do with anglo v. native perspectives, but also because a battle in which one side is virtually eliminated goes beyond normal combat results. Usually, a side loses and a side wins, but enough of the losing side still remains to withdraw in defeat. But all that changes when only a handful, if any, survivors are left. Casualties are always expected, but total defeat is not. And when it does happen, few will not look for the reasons why. Its not a knock on the victors at all, but a reasonable response. Even if its determined that the numbers of Zulu/Sioux were probably enough to defeat the British/7th Cavalry, regardless of how they were configured. Defeat itself can be stunning, but its a possibility. Total annihilation is that much more shocking. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
  |
|
|
Durnford
Private
South Africa
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2004 : 06:39:51 AM
|
One final thought - if the chest and the horn formation is deployed in its text-book form it should not allow for the enemy to escape. The theory is that the British / Colonial / NNC survivors escaped before the 'jaws' closed.
But there are two many questions that will remain unanswered.
If you ever do decide to come to the battlefield - there are a number of great places to stay, and superb guides.
Isandlwana lodge is run by an American Lady called Patt Stubbs and the resident Historian is a former British Colonel - Rob Gerrard. What I like is that Rob being of a military background himself - and doesn't hold back punches!
Alternatively. David Rattray at Fugitives Drift grew up in the area and is an expert on Zulu tradition and culture. He has gathered as much Zulu oral tradition surrounding the battle as anyone. A brilliant storyteller.
There are others as well - John Turner comes to mind at Babanago Lodge.
Whilst in South Africa - and in Natal - there are also some (besides Anglo / Zulu) Boer War battle sites you have gotta see. The battle of Spioen Kop is a fascinating story for instance. |
|
|
|
The Red Soldier
Recruit
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 12:39:53 AM
|
Sorry I've only just found you boys, so I've got some catching up to do.
Further to comments made by "Durnford", I also recommend the book 'Zulu Victory - The Epic of Isandlwana & the Cover-up', by Ron Lock & Peter Quantrill, published in 2002. Ron is also a battlefield guide in the area.
On the question of inyangas 'doctoring' the Zulu forces prior to Isandlwana, which was put out in the documentary, which "Durnford" has already poured scorn. The doctoring rituals are lengthy events, what the experts on that programme failed to put over was the Zulu forces under the command of Ntshingwayo kaMahole rushed into action when their concealed impi was discovered. Thereby preventing any 'doctoring', what carried these men on was sheer courage - not 'dagga' or magic mushrooms as the programme suggested.
Just to clarify things only five of the officers who served Isandlwana were regular soldiers. Capt. A.C. Gardner 14th Hussars; Capt. E. Essex 75th Regt.; Lt. W. Cochrane 32nd Regt; Lt. H. Curling Royal Artillery & Lt. H.L. Smith-Dorrien 95th Regt. Of those only Curling, the gunner, held a non-staff position. It is interesting to note 10 artillerymen (11, if you include the gunner from the Rocket Battery.) survived the battle, the most men from any unit, save for those Africans in the Natal Native Contingent or the Natal Native Horse.
There has been, to my knowledge, at least one book (Gump's 'Dust Rose Like Smoke')& an article that have been published which attempt to draw on the similarities the campaigns fought by Custer & Chelmsford. Personally, I find more distinct parallels with the 'Red Cloud War' and the Anglo-Zulu War, than I do with 1876 campaign.
|
|
|
|
Durnford
Private
South Africa
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 01:44:38 AM
|
| At last the reinforcements have finally arrived! |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 1:17:07 PM
|
I'll look up the book of twenty odd years ago from which the chemically inspired evidence arose in me. I did not see the Discovery Channel bit, which is weird because I watch it.
But here we go. Just as the US had to inflate the abilities of Robert Lee or Yamamoto, a man who never won a battle unless attacking a nation not at war or during the immediate aftermath, the Brits are now reinventing the Zulu into something they weren't. Why? Because to make yourself look good, you have to inflate your (defeated) enemy. The Zulu were somewhere between stone and iron age, for the most part, and they whupped the Brits with 20 to 1 odds.
This is where it reflects Custer, because our idiots invented a history of an actual man, called Bison, into Sitting Bull because he attended West Point and nobody but a real live Napoleon could whup the Boy General, hero of the greatest war ever. We COULDN'T have lost to mere Indians.
Are you saying in seriousness that 20k Zulu rehearsed this manuever? They took time off and rehearsed, honed it to perfection as a 20k unit? Are you saying that this manuever isn't common in phalanx formations of the ancient world? It has that great name and image, chest and horns, and appeals deeply to military men who think there is a tactical issue always, which is good because they love to talk about it, minutiae as key. And if this manuever was a surprise to the Brits, what exactly were they envisioning?
No doubt religious ceremony would have taken too long for infusion of the goods, but because there was no time for the eucharist we can't discount dispensation of rum or worse to 'civilized' troops in battle. It happens. People are the same. It has nothing to do with courage or not. You want the most out of your men at a given time, and nobody is brave always. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 4:55:14 PM
|
DC is close to my point. Hooray for the Zulus for being able to pull of such a formation and maneuver at a 20k troop level. But its their one move. It'd be like a football team practicing the old Statue of Liberty play till they got it down to a fine science. Good for them, but one play does not allow flexibility.
I will also contend that they did not mean to be so far apart, that the confusion both sides seemed to experience helped the Zulus. As I recall, the Brits thought they had been pounced on by the whole of the nearby Zulu army, when another horn shows up, having arrived from afar.
I'll buy the Yamamoto reference, but what about Lee is so inflated? Yes, he probably is overrated, but he did humiliate the much larger Union armies so often it can't all be luck or Federal incompetence. He was a talented commander, and he certainly seemed to have his army behind him. I guess winning battles over and over does that for ya. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
The Red Soldier
Recruit
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 6:01:17 PM
|
"Dark Cloud",
I take it from you reply you have never heard of Shaka kaSenzangakhona? A Zulu military genius, whose thirst for conquest would leave Zulu placenames in what is now Namibia - from one side of Africa to the other! Or up towards Lake Victoria - look at a map to see where that is, from a point just north of the modern city of Durban on the Indian Ocean, and then consider that he started his military conquests with just 400 men, in the years following Napoleon's banishment to St. Helena.
Next week when I'm with the descendants of these men, who you believe '...were somewhere between stone and iron age...', remembering the events of 125 years ago, I'll mentioned your belief and maybe you'll hear the sound of their laughter across the pond. Men like Sihayo, who had trading links and wealth far beyond the realm of KwaZulu. Or King Cetshwayo kaMpande, himself, please don't look at him like some ignorant savage - or your own comprehension of these people is on a par with some petty 19th Century British official. The AmaZulu had their own status quo, long before either the British or the Boers attempted to impose their will on them.
We don't have to invent myths about the AmaZulu, to justify the defeat at Isandlwana, as the facts speak for themselves. A British force was defeated by a peasant militia, and not for the first time in our history.
Yes that peasant militia did drill the 'i'mpondo zankhomo' - the horn's of the beast. Which was the same tactical formation that Hannibal employed at Canaan! No, it was no surprise the British as we even had a handbook, which told us that would be a deployment the AmaZulu would employed. What no-one had conceived was that the deployment would be on such a grand scale.
Yes you can discount your 'Dutch courage' theory, as well, as the taking of 'dagga' - cannabis snuff, had its own ritual too.
What this 'greatest war' you allude to as well? At least as it was a Civil War, you weren't late for that one!
And were the British forces in KwaZulu, in 1879, were they no less 'smug, ignorant, unprepared, and outnumbered...' than their American counterparts in Somalia in the 1990's or Vietnam in the 1960's & 70's? Even with '...well supplied M-60's and air support...'? Ponder that before you make crass statements about the ability of the British soldier for being 'whupped' by a numerical superior force, who knew the terrain and used it to their advantage.
NB: I mean to cause no offence in these last two paragraphs, I merely seek to redress what appears to be an inbalance in theories proffered by 'Dark Cloud'.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 10:11:59 PM
|
Say, there's a coldly objective source: the descendents. Visit Boston sometime and ask the Irish descendents of the Emerald Isle's Kings for an accurate history of their ancestors.
You can go to the American South today and find all sorts of idiots who think that with this tactic or that man in that place, the South would have won our Civil War. Fully half the North wasn't even impacted by the war; the economy was huge, growing, and inventive. The South wasn't anything.
And yeah, Crab, Lee lost after Jackson was killed. Nearly every battle, in fact. He was beloved, but he was useful to the North alive and dormant after the war to encourage peace, so they let his reputation grow. Read Grant's memoirs where he makes a case that Lee, while really good and a great gentlemen, was seriously over-rated. That seems self serving, but in reality - since Grant won - he'd have fluffed his own pillow by making Lee out to be a giant. But Grant, ironically, was quite honest.
It's possible my sarcasm doesn't translate, but you've taken offense at pokes I apply to ourselves as well. English/Americans have always elevated their fiascos into, as Tuchman wrote, 'things of beauty.'
And while I've read the name (I think) I am not fluent in the exploits of Shaka kaSenzangakhona, a name I cannot pronounce. And this huge empire of which you thrill is probably not much bigger than that granted to the Sioux, who had more land than the French and Germans and were stone age as well. They could not make the wheel, they could not make metal, and what metal they had came from the whites.
England, a tiny nation, travelled thousands of miles with their not primo soldiers and conquered twenty five percent of the world. Nobody in their right mind grants genius status to the guys who whupped the Zulu on their home ground. Eventually....... But Cetshwayo (I think) is fluffed up because it makes the Brits look better.
And although I know essentially nothing of Shaka's life but a fair amount about other 'military genius' I can safely predict that his story (which corresponds to Clive's 400 taking India)won't stand up to western revisionist historians, or cynics, or common sense. It will be revealed that he used western weapons and/or support to conquer his neighbors (selling out, it's called)probably becoming a lackey of some western power upon whom he turned at some point. Examination of his work and times will reveal his actions, done for his personal glory under the guise of 'freedom' for his class striated society, hurt the Zulu more than helped. And that his supposed genius is an ever so handy excuse for forgiving the incompetence of this enemies.
For the Zulus to be conquered by England, imagine the United States conquered by Borneo. Would that be embarrassing? Call into question our military and political competence? Not in Borneo. They'd repeat all our self glorifying garbage because they beat us, and it speaks for itself. The Zulu, in the cold light of history, got whupped pretty bad and pretty quick and they never recovered, and their leaders are Mensa members? Your friends can laugh, but so can history.
Further, you seem to take my stone to iron age as a generic if not a racial put down, which it is not. Much of America north of Mexico was stone age, but there are cities along the Mississippi that traded for Peruvian gold and Viking jewelry, probably from Newfoundland. That's one extensive trading setup. But no wheel. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 11:37:32 PM
|
Thin Red Soldier,
Before you respond to the blither above, some advice. I’ve been but a brief participant on this forum, but I've been here long enough to advise that you are about to tread on thin ice that there is no requirement to negotiate. Dark Cloud, as the name implies, is nothing more than a troll. A school-book "soldier" and wann-a-be somebody whose ideas of courage come from half-read history books thumbed through at his leisure while tinkling ice cubes in his glass at the end of a “hard day”. To DC, the concept of courage is nothing more than a tool to leverage towards his own ends through convoluted soliloquy—dotted with an allusion to a knowledge of history—all nobly couched in a facade to defend the righteous and support the weak—especially if it is convenient to meet his elusive ends or gain some obsequious advantage in a self-concocted argument. If you continue down this path, know this. DC achieves the "courage" he cannot attain in real life through the vicarious experience of his "heroic" displays on this forum. After all, you would have to be courageous to post the tripe that he does unabashedly on a day-to-day basis--and then squirm like a worm in defense of it. He is the embodiment of the very thing he detests the most—an irrelevant wind bag.
Good luck in your discussions with others more learned--and avoid the troll.
v/r
Wrangler |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 11:39:38 PM
|
DC,
We'll see you back at the ranch. I still await your answers. |
|
|
|
gen.obst.model
Recruit
Status: offline |
Posted - September 13 2004 : 5:41:17 PM
|
the post from anonymous poster 2321 oct 10 2003 deserves reply.
glad to see someone corrected you on the somme not marne battle,glad to see someone corrected you on horace lockwood smith dorrien,now i have to correct you on the zillions of dead
yes 60000 british soldiers were casualties(not all dead) on the first day of the somme,but in relation to american losses,you say in the "whole war".
the somme was in 1916
the war started in 1914
the americans entered the war in 1917
the war ended in 1918
consequently british losses were allways going to be higher,as they were in the second world war,because we were in both from the beginning.
add the years of the two world wars together and compare,as you have,american and british involvement.
1914 to 1918=5years
1939 to 1945=5-1/2 years
total=10-1/2 years
american involvement=5-1/2 years
british involvement =10-1/2 years
my freind,it speaks for itself.
everyone else let me add i am an ardent fan of our american freinds,who have allways shown their courage and judgement in the defence of freedom.
if you want to learn more about the zulu war on a forum with many published authors and historians,try rorkesdriftvc.com
let me add many of you have made some extremely interesting points on the zulu war,can i add a couple here,
many of the zulu did have rifles of varying quality,one of the quartermasters issuing ammunition was shot dead during the battle by such a weapon
not one impirial officer from the 2 regiments escaped the battle ,all died with their men.
the majority of the bodies lay unburied for 4 months,and because of the zulu practise of disemboweling,many were mummified and still recognizable.
some soldiers were mutilated,their lower jaws being worn as head dresses by the zulu,the young boys of the bands were hoisted on meat hooks and castrated probably while still alive,several mens heads were cut of and placed in their stomachs,parts of the bodies were removed and used as medicine,by zulu doctors.
the zulu force probably exceeded 25000,the grassland still flat where they had marched 4 months later,as though a gigantic roller had flattened it.
the soldiers fixed bayonets when their ammunition ran out,they fought back to back,untill the zulu threw their own dead onto the bayonets to get close(post war zulu witness accounts)
durnfords withdrawl on the right meant that the camp commander had to withdraw his line on the left,too late as the zulu were too close and charged home.
"those red soldiers knew how to fight,each man fell in his place like stones"(zulu witness)
regards to all
from a proud brit.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 13 2004 : 6:59:12 PM
|
I think you misread me. I corrected myself on the Somme and the Marne. I don't see where I'm corrected on Smith Dorrien on the 10th, just a point of information.
No, 600k did not die on the first day of the Somme, that was over the course of the battle of some months. Ghastly. My vote for the worst battle ever. That is roughly the amount the US lost, as I said, in our entire Civil War, north and south, although both figures are likely downsized. I wasn't referring to our rather minimal losses in WWI, or combined with WWII, which still aren't a half million, but bad enough.
I've read several figures for what the Brits lost on the first day of the Somme, and those who counted those who eventually died from wounds obtained the first day, total it as about 30K. We're correct to be suspicious of remarkably large, round numbers, though.
I have my same chemical animosity to rave reviews by the Zulu for the British as I do of the Sioux's for the cavalry here. And we would do well to be suspicious of such as you relate. Unless a Zulu participant, fluent in English, wrote down such things and signed it with witnesses, this is the same sort of glop Americans spin about, among other battles, the LIttle Bighorn.
I've not read the 25k number, most thought it about 5k less. Eh. Still a huge difference.
The story you tell is almost identical to the French and their myths of Sedan and the Battle of the Last Cartridge, or Custer with his non-existent sword as the last to fall. Also, you don't mention that one unit apparently lost its ammunition train, and was actually refused supply from a brother unit, which means that running out of ammo wasn't actually the issue. It was moronic custom and apparently a disorganized command, if it were a command at all with two commanding officers not acting in concert.
The US - or at least the North - has by the grace of the almighty only never suffered a war like Europeans and our attitude towards war today reflects our ignorance. Still, we owe the dead not Etonian glurge about heroism, but the truth, so that their sons and daughters, and ours, don't suffer the same stupidities that are often only revealed in battle conditions. I'm sure most everyone was brave to the last, but the camp was surprised, unprepared in general, and whatever heroism glistened that day, it was badly done.
How can 20k enemy get within five miles of your camp before you know it? In some of those photos from the Rorke's Drift site, you're looking more than five miles. Really, what kind of scouting arrangements by professionals would allow that? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2004 : 10:19:42 AM
|
As much as I hate to admit it DC, I have to agree with the general thrust of your last post. The Zulu army's victory at Isandlwana has been overhyped but I think it has more to do with modern political correctness rather than any desire to make the Brits look better. They can still talk about Rorkes Drift for that sort of spin. In fact I have read a claim that the British Government of the day promoted the defence of Rorkes Drift in order to overshadow the earlier disaster.
The Zulu's were a very effective native army-regimented and disciplined and more than a match for their African foes. They got lucky at Isandlwana. A befuddled, arrogant opponent caught on the wrong foot, unable to grasp the true situation until it was too late.
The problem I have with the Zulu military system is that it had no flexibility. Even though they won the battle all reports suggest that their casualty rate was extremely high. Despite this they fought another 4 or 5 engagements against the British in exactly the same fashion and lost them all. Not the sign of a forward thinking military leadership.
From all accounts, Lord Chelmsford wouldn't have given Napoleon many sleepless nights but he certainly didn't make the same mistake twice and ended up finishing the Zulu nation in a very effective manner. Unfortunately for him, much like Custer, history only remembers him for his greatest defeat.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2004 : 11:40:45 AM
|
Wrangler, have just read your pout from January, rivaling Frank Bodden and Wiggs for foot-stomping whine, which is saying something. Surprised I didn't see that before.
I have said from the beginning, pretending nothing else (as opposed to others) that I'm not and never have been a soldier. I'm further quite certain I'm a coward, and cheerfully would have arranged the dead and wounded for my own protection at the Little Bighorn. So, I fail to understand how rattling the cages of you and others would elevate me in my own eyes or anyone's given my claims. Not like I lust for approval here, safe to say.
So, to imply the opposite - that I feel a warrior by drop-kicking others in print, apparently absent other ability - is a clear fabrication, based on nothing but wishful thinking and contrary to what I've actually posted. In any case, it doesn't, but that may just be because I'm so entirely pleased with myself in general I don't notice.
Further, collapsing you in debate doesn't grant a lock to The Pantheon of Immortals, and it's somewhat delusional to think it would be viewed as such.
I'm in good company, though, given your heroic dissing of the deceased Gray, about the only way I'd be included in the same sentence with him. How's that PowerPoint presentation coming? Gray blown away yet? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2004 : 2:20:09 PM
|
I'm further quite certain I'm a coward,
DC May I suggest that perhaps you mean a physical coward and not that other unforgivable malady, a moral coward.
|
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2004 : 3:49:26 PM
|
Wrangler, congratulations for joining Wiggs and me in the footstomping whiners cloud, according to darkcloud. This girliemon must have some memory because I haven't whined nor footstomped in many moons. I can't even remember the last time. I don't come to this board very often because of assholes like dc, but I think if my postings in the last couple of weeks have displayed any whining, and I gave up footstomping long ago. Anyway, nice to know you're joined the elite "Against All Odds Board's Footstomping Whiners Association." Welcome. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2004 : 7:59:15 PM
|
Benteen's Bros.,
The first time is always difficult, I'm told.
Wild,
I don't know. Room for concern, surely.
Frank,
If you want to call someone a name or two on someone else's forum, charmless as that is, somehow summon the courage to address it to the person you wish to insult. Otherwise you look rather, well, wimpy, yapping between the feet of others at ankle level. On the upside, you don't deny you whine and stamp your foot, at least, an elevation above Wiggs. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 14 2004 8:04:05 PM |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2004 : 8:31:39 PM
|
| What a hoot. There are enough $2 words here to open a bank. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2004 : 10:18:12 PM
|
| As the drowing man sinks in his own quagmire of mis-information and valueless rhetoric, he, sadly, resorts to the name of his nemesis, "Wiggs", as a last resort. Hoping to redeem his pathetic status, he can only lash out at one whom, in his demented psyche, is the epitome of all that he does not believe in. Dim Clown, you have truly shown the forum how sad you are. In the history of mankind, no man has "used so many words to say so little." That was a direct quote from someone other than I. I must admit that your fixation with me is borderline Wiggs-phile. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2004 : 11:34:16 PM
|
There are better quotes and more damning, but they hardly quiver anyone anyway given their inaccuracy and source. No fixation with you or Bodden, but since you two are the only ones who whine and throw tantrums, it was an appropriate comparison. Even your fictional neighborhood children could tell you that.
And as Bodden just discovered and you ignore, once stuff is up on the Internet, you can't retract it or pretend it did not happen. You can only apologize, as you should do for your numerous fabrications, or blush, as Bodden and you both should do for slinging obscenities when you simply cannot toe the line. It's what children do, like using emoticons. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2004 : 03:00:28 AM
|
 Wiggs, you keep plugging away. I'll check the board every few weeks to see what hapless bloke darkcloud is pummelling away at next. Meantime, back to my serious boards. It's always fun to see what's happening here. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2004 : 10:27:20 AM
|
| Come, Frank, you must be one of Wiggs' neighborhood children. Although, even they don't use emoticons. "Serious" boards wouldn't have you for that alone, Frank, and in any case would be composed of academics discussing stuff in detail you don't understand. Perhaps eventually you'll summon the courage to call people obscene names directly, rather than doing so in a posting to someone else. It's still wrong, childish, cowardly, and boorish, but an improvement none the less. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2004 : 10:35:36 AM
|
Come, Frank, you must be one of Wiggs' neighborhood children. Although, even they wouldn't use emoticons. "Serious" boards wouldn't have you, Frank, for that alone, and in any case would be composed of academics discussing stuff in detail you don't understand. The only time academics want to chat with the hoi poloi is when they're in retail and on the make, selling services or books or in customer relations for future sales, stroking correspondents' egos for their "enthusiasm" and "interest."
Perhaps eventually you'll summon the courage to call people obscene names directly, rather than doing so in a posting to someone else to shield yourself. It's still wrong, childish, cowardly, and boorish, but an ethical improvement none the less.
Regardless, this got steered away from Zulu by Wrangler's pout of January. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 15 2004 10:36:52 AM |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2004 : 12:09:04 PM
|
Well, gee, dc. Regarding calling names, this subject was flowing nicely until you began the name calling with your whining footstomping remarks. Totally uncalled for. So if you can't handle and little give and take, go back to mommy and cry to her. Some people can dish it out and take it, and others? Well, there's individuals like you. It's okay to call people whiners, etc., but asshole, which is far more descriptive and appropriate in your case, isn't? What a lonely, pathetic life you must live if all you have to do in life is stir things up and try to intimidate people. Go back to your dollhouse and play with your things. As to the rest of the serious folks here, I apologize to you for even responding to her whiner remarks and getting this off subject. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2004 : 3:57:52 PM
|
Actually, Frank, I do a passing amount. I don't intimidate people. Ideas stir things up. What do you mean by "...isn't?" If you continue to call people names, it won't further yourself but, on the other hand, the journey to maturity begins with a tiny step, and after encoragement you WERE able to almost call me a name to my face (so to speak). Good boy. I'm sure when you return from your serious boards in two or three weeks you'll have calmed down. But still using emoticons.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Isandlwana/Isandlwhana Similiarities
