| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 03 2004 : 3:11:37 PM
|
quote:
That topic seems to have been deleted!
Sorry to spoil your day sunshine, the topic was only moved to a more appropriate place.
Just to ensure you can find it, click on the All Forums list, then at the the bottom of the Forums, the Sound Off forum.
It might be educational.
Billy |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 9:51:13 PM
|
"Wiggs do you have an answer?"
Larsen,having lived upon this earth a goodly amount of years, I have learned that "facts" are not the "Alpha" and the "Omega" of life. Occasionally, perspectives, conceptional thought, common sense, and a totality of circumstances will reveal much to us. These elements of life, combined with facts, help us all to understand the what, why, and how, of past events (history). Realizing that life is a combination of a myriad of elements reveals truth.
Your persistent, tenacious, and excruciatingly painful peals of "How do you know?" "Where you there?", "who are you to say" lamentations defy reasonableness. All of this under the veneer of "how intelligent am I world?"
is not worthy of you.
It is this, albeit personally perceived, obnoxious nit-picking of yours that seems to infuriate others to a level of acute frustration. You are not the guardian of the Halls of Valhalla, you are a regular smuck just like most folk.
Once again Larsen, I say to you that you have much to offer this forum if you would just leave your Ego  at the back door and not take yourself so seriously.
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 03 2004 9:58:31 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 10:47:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Your persistent, tenacious, and excruciatingly painful peals of "How do you know?" "Where you there?", "who are you to say" lamentations defy reasonableness.
Actually, those are questions you should be asking yourself before you post. We all ought to. It saves embarassment, increases accuracy.
You claim that Weir while on Reno Hill heard firing coming from Calhoun Hill, without proof. You claim that Weir perceived Reno to be timid, without proof. Neither assertion, if you can't show that it actually happened, reveals any "truth" about the battle. It's just something you claimed. If you have evidence for it which withstands scrutiny then that's one thing. But if not, why should it be accepted?
You talk vaguely about revealing "truth". I simply asked you to show how you knew the things you said were true. Which is more likely to lead us closer to what actually happened? My questions, or your assertions?
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on December 03 2004 11:53:06 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 04 2004 : 2:15:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Larson: Are you refering specifically to Calhoun Hill as where the firing was heard to come from are just "far downstream" as Gray's book states. I do not believe the firing could be deduced as to coming from a specific hill.
My point exactly. I don't think it can be known that the firing was coming from any particular hill. Yet Wiggs said it was. It doesn't matter, except that it's pretending to know something we cannot know, and LBH is polluted enough with false knowledge as it is.
quote:
If Weir did not percieve Reno to be timid, why did he move out toward Custer withiut orders as Gray reaches that conclusion!
That he didn't agree w/ what Reno wanted to do is the simplest answer. We can't know what Weir's perceptions of the emotions of other people were at specific times in the battle, because he never got to speak for himself and tell anybody. If he did, I'm open to correction.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 10 2004 : 11:18:42 PM
|
| We can assume some of Weir's perceptions and emotions during a "specific time" in battle by critquing his documented actions during a "specific" time in battle. Naturally, no one can know for a certainty what one human being is experiencing during an emotional moment. However, to claim that Weir never had an opportunity to "speak" for himself is incorrect. The old adage, "Actions speak louder than words" is appropiate in this situation. While Reno hesitated to respond to the "sound" of firing, Weir becam increasinly agitated. Finally, he became determined to do something about it. He told Lt. Edgerly that he thought he they ought to go to Custer's assistance. Edgerly agreed with him! When Weir went to Reno to gain permission, he was refused. Acording to Dustin, The Custer Fight, 21-22, the two became engaged in a hot exchange of language in which threats were made on both sides. Benteen, himself, testified to Weir's subsequent departure without the approval of his commander. This Court martial offense performed by Weir speaks volumns regarding his perspective of Reno's failure to render assistance. People may speak eloquently with their hearts, soul, and purpose in life. To demand that every thought of every human being be chisled in print, or disregard it, is unrealistic. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 10 2004 : 11:38:29 PM
|
Edgerly said Weir told him he never asked Reno for permission to go. And Weir came rushing back with this company when the huge Sioux numbers turned on him. He was so agitated and concerned for Custer that he's barely mentioned again after he got to Weir Point and never accused anyone of failure during the six months remaining to him. In any case, was Weir concerned for Custer's safety or concerned with missing out on commendation if Custer fought without them?
What coldly objective source is Dustin quoting about the supposed blow up with Reno? Martin? Churchill? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2004 : 10:06:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
We can assume some of Weir's perceptions and emotions during a "specific time" in battle by critquing his documented actions during a "specific" time in battle. Naturally, no one can know for a certainty what one human being is experiencing during an emotional moment. However, to claim that Weir never had an opportunity to "speak" for himself is incorrect.
You're right. Before he died Fred Whittaker asked him to say something disparaging about Reno for the book he was about to publish. Weir told him to sod off. Yet somehow you managed to draw out of him what Whittaker never could. Those children and you always find a way to amaze.
quote:
The old adage, "Actions speak louder than words" is appropiate in this situation. While Reno hesitated to respond to the "sound" of firing, Weir becam increasinly agitated. Finally, he became determined to do something about it. He told Lt. Edgerly that he thought he they ought to go to Custer's assistance. Edgerly agreed with him! When Weir went to Reno to gain permission, he was refused. Acording to Dustin, The Custer Fight, 21-22, the two became engaged in a hot exchange of language in which threats were made on both sides. Benteen, himself, testified to Weir's subsequent departure without the approval of his commander. This Court martial offense performed by Weir speaks volumns regarding his perspective of Reno's failure to render assistance. People may speak eloquently with their hearts, soul, and purpose in life. To demand that every thought of every human being be chisled in print, or disregard it, is unrealistic.
Weir's actions don't say anything other than that he disagreed with what Reno wished to do, for that moment. (This is assuming he did discuss it with Reno and got an answer, and stories differ.) You don't know what Weir thought Reno was feeling at that time. The sources don't allow us to pry open Weir's head. He could have thought many things.
What you're trying to put forth about Weir's thoughts about other people's feelings isn't cold objective history. It's romantic fiction, masquerading as history.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 12:11:43 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Larsen: It is true we can't pry open Weir's head! However, I do not think it is a big jump to deduce what someone is thinking from observing their actions in a high tension, tactical and fluid situation such as this. In Weir's case I believe as Wigg's puts it, "Actions speak louder than words".
If they did people wouldn't misunderstand people so much. I've had people try to guess what I was thinking/feeling based on my actions, and I'd say they're as wrong as often as they're right. Weir's actions don't suggest to me that he thought Reno was a coward. He may have, but the utmost they say to me is that he didn't agree with what Reno thought to be the best course at the moment. I suppose I'm reserved about such things. Wiggs's pretensions to being able to get inside dead people's heads strikes me as pretty damned presumptuous, if not arrogant.
You weren't here at the time, but he once claimed that Curley was "haunted" for the rest of his life by one particular thing he saw at the battle. When I asked Wiggs how he could say this he could give no satisfactory answer, and nothing that Curley is ever reported to have said about that incident suggests it had any especial effect on him.
People don't function robotically, so you can't just assume what they felt/perceived based on what they did or saw. There's too much variance among individuals. Case in point, Wiggs and you (and me and, I think, Dark Cloud) don't read this Weir stuff in the same way you do. That alone disproves the claim Wiggs is trying to make about what justifies him to assume things about people's personal reactions to events.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 7:54:29 PM
|
Larsen, your blowhard determination that my perspective is, "romantic fiction" is about as valid as Jim Bakker giving a thesis on honesty. You are the only buffoon in this hemisphere who does not realize that the physical actions of an individual or group is greatly influenced by cultural mores. As a result, a historian gathers much information, regarding actions of the past, by studying the "actions". Examples Larsen? Certainly, we currently have a wealth of information regarding ancient battles that encompasses individual exploits of warriors who fought in these battles. History books (the one's you grew up with)are full of such information. Hello, is anywhere there?
There is not an individual on this forum foolish enough to believe that I or, anyone else for that matter, would attempt to decipher Weir's mind, yet you felt compelled to make such an idiotic comment. If you would stop trying to sound like a "lawyer" you would probably, not necesarily, make sense. I do not make this statement in anger; honestly! I just truly find your feebly (albeit consistent)attempts to mar the credibility of everyone who disagrees with you as tiresome. You and Dc are right, I can't spell, I write in purple prose, and I tend towards romanticism. Thank God I'm all of these things rather than being, even remotely, like you two! |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 12 2004 8:17:43 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 8:03:48 PM
|
| P.S., your post, "Now that's just cowardly Warlord" 11/30/2005-5:03:28 is incredulous and the height of audacity. I will say no more. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 12 2004 8:19:30 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2004 : 06:34:35 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
As a result, a historian gathers much information, regarding actions of the past, by studying the "actions".
Not the information you're trying to extract.
quote:
Examples Larsen? Certainly, we currently have a wealth of information regarding ancient battles that encompasses individual exploits of warriors who fought in these battles. History books (the one's you grew up with)are full of such information. Hello, is anywhere there?
Yes - and wondering what you're talking about. What do ancient battles have to do with anything? We can't know what Weir was perceiving about the emotions of anybody unless he wrote it down somewhere and spilled it to the world, and all the ancient battles in history aren't going to fill that gap of silence.
quote:
There is not an individual on this forum foolish enough to believe that I or, anyone else for that matter, would attempt to decipher Weir's mind, yet you felt compelled to make such an idiotic comment.
But you are, Wiggs. You're claiming that Weir "perceived" that Reno did not favor going out to Custer because of timidness. You have nothing from Weir verifying this. It's mind-reading, nothing else..... and if you believe Edgerly, the whole conversation with Reno which supposedly has revealed Weir's aching heart never even happened.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2004 : 06:48:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
P.S., your post, "Now that's just cowardly Warlord" 11/30/2005-5:03:28 is incredulous and the height of audacity. I will say no more.
Please do; I certainly did. Don't forget to share your thoughts about the latest on the "Sound Off" board either, in the comments about Rich. I assume you will.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on December 13 2004 06:54:33 AM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 14 2004 : 02:12:40 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Of course guessing peoples thoughts from their action is certainly not a science. But I have done enough of it to know it can be done on ocassion. If someone is shooting at you, it is fair to assume he is trying to kill you. If after heated discussion Weir starts off alone I think we can assume he did not agree with Reno. Not a biggie!
Not what Wiggs claimed either. He's saying he knows what Weir "perceived" Reno to be feeling at one particular moment in life, as usual without evidence. Being old and (supposedly) being a cop does not substitute for that.
quote:
Ancient battles? Well thats what they study in the military acadmies all the time! There must be some value to it.
That's pretty vague, Warlord. Of course, Wiggs was just as vague. What does it have to do with Weir's alleged perceptions of Reno's feelings?
quote:
Curley "haunted", I don't know, possibly! I think all of us are haunted by traumautizing events in our lives to one extent or another.
Yeah - "possibly". It's "possible" he was Mitch Bouyer's bastard son too. Plenty of things are possible. The point is that when Wiggs claimed Curley was haunted for the rest of his life by a particular incident, he had no evidence of it (wishful thinking doesn't count) and you shouldn't need me to tell you that many events which are traumatizing to one person are not traumatizing at all to another. Hence there is no validity to the assumptions Wiggs is trying to make.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 15 2004 : 9:24:12 PM
|
My post:12-10-04
"Naturally, no one can know for a certainty what one human being is experiencing during an emotional moment."
Larsen:"Your claiming that Weir perceived that Reno did....Hence there is no validity to the assumption Wiggs is trying to make."
This is but one example of why I find you so replusive. Not because you are mistaken (once again, over and over and over, and over, and over, etc.)but, it is because you are the first to fling a "stone" at another regarding tactics that you use constantly. So easily and calmly do you quickly call another a "Liar." I can't help but wonder if you would be so eager to do so "Mano Y Mano? Of course not. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 15 2004 : 9:38:45 PM
|
Dc, I don't know what "coldly objective source" Dustin is quoting regarding the alleged discussion between Weir and Reno but, I do have some information.
Interview with John Fox, D Company.
"He says he heard a converstion between Weir and Reno before D company went out. He says Weir Remarked, 'Custer must be around here somewhere and we ought to go to him.' Reno said,'we are surrounded by Indians and we ought to remain here.' Weir said,'Well if no one else goes to Custer, I will go.' Reno replied,'No you can not go. For if you try to do it you will get killed and your company with you.' Fox says Reno appeared to be intoxicated or partially so. He says Moylan and Benteen stood by and heard what Weir said and they did not seem to approve of Weir going and talked as though to discourage him."
Custer&Company(Liddic and Harbaugh)P. 94 and 95.
Yes, Weir did admit to Edgarly that he did not ask permission to move forward, he didn't have to.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2004 : 09:31:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
You, 11/28: "Weir was distraught when he heard the "sound of firing" emanating from Calhoun Hill. Convinced that Custer's command was engaged in heated combat, he wished to join them. Disgusted with Reno's perceived timidity, he trotted off towards destiny. "
Since then you've tried to argue that you can assume what one human being was thinking about another's feelings, which is bull-pucky. Read your post of 12/10 for a good example of fallacious reasoning, which even concludes with the argument that by refusing to assume what Weir thought about another's feelings I (or anyone else) am "disregarding" Weir's own thoughts. Of course.
If you're ready now to drop this pretense that you can open up Weir's head, I'll forget what's done and lay off you. I've called several people liars in my life, in the flesh and not, and done it cleanly because the charge was accurate, so I don't think I'll have any problem calling you one when the moniker fits (as it so often does). People who lie are weasels, & scurry around like one, so it'll be a fresh experience if I ever find one intimidating.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2004 : 09:45:30 AM
|
Fox also claims that when Weir ended the conversation by stating that he would go, Reno "did not object," which doesn't really agree with anybody (or with you). For some reason you forgot to quote that part.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2004 : 10:36:31 AM
|
| It's superfluous to point out that the supposedly drunk Reno was correct in his command decision within this story, because Weir and company came roaring back towards safety as soon as he caught the eye of the Indians and they moved on him. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2004 : 8:30:49 PM
|
Let me get this straight. Walter Camp, one of the most recognized investigators into the BLBH, submits to paper an actual conversation/interview with a live participant in the battle and this is the best you both can come up with? I would expect so much more from such an illustrious combo of intellect; seriously!
It is "superfluous" to make reference to the possible inebriation of a command officer during a battle in which hundreds of men forfeited their lives simply because Weir, wisely, retreated?
I "forgot" to quote a portion of Fox's 398 page,tome?
as if it were possible to "quote" the entire book to accommodate Larsen?
Would it not have been better to:
a. Ignore the thread;
b. Call Camp a liar;
c. Remind the forum of my tendency to commit plagerism;
d. Whine;
e. Refer to my ghastly inability to spell;
d. All of the above |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 16 2004 8:55:01 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2004 : 8:59:46 PM
|
P.S
I believe I may have inadvertenly placed Dc and Larsen in a pickle. If they choose "d" which we all know they are salivating at the the mouth to do, they clain Camp to be a liar.
If they select any other choice, I escape with being only partially slandered. All right folks, which do you think it will be? Is this not exciting?! |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2004 : 9:23:54 PM
|
Just which Fox do you think I was referring to, Wiggs? Richard A. Fox, PhD., or the Fox you were actually quoting? You clipped out a sentence, very next page, presumably because it created problems for the scenario you were promoting.
As for Fox's story --- the soldier, not the author --- color me skeptical. As an enlisted member of D Company, he was supposed to be off with Edgerly and the rest of the company, out of earshot, and so how he came to hear this conversation in such luscious detail (even to Reno's intoxication) is a small mystery.
Edgerly himself told Camp (in "Custer in'76") that Weir never asked for permission, and just went off by himself. His story is confirmed by Godfrey in his Century Magazine narrative (see "Custer Myth" pg.142). Fox's story claims Benteen and Moylan to have been active participants in the conversation, something not borne out by what documents and testimony they've left.
I don't know what the real story was ---- most of the people who commented on it plead total ignorance on how Weir's advance came to be, and they were probably telling the truth --- but what Edgerly says is credible enough, makes everybody look a little stupid, and if something else is to be believed .... something else which is a lot more sensational, with charges of drunkenness and even Reno granting tacit approval before Weir went off ..... it'll need to come from somebody a lot better than a private from D Company who had no business being there in the first place.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2004 : 9:58:15 PM
|
You have dissapointed so many viewers by not making a selection, come on and be a sport and do so.
Secondly, to claim that information derived from a private from "D" company who "had no business being there in the first place" probably contends for the most arrogant, unbelievable, obnoxious statement you have made on this forum thus far; and that's saying a lot.
Who are you, but an "Arm chair general" who has never performed an heroic act in defense of your Country, your self, or any one else for that matter, to make such a haughty declaration regarding a gentleman who actually was there.
Private Fox was discharged on Sept. 23, 1880 as a "Sergeant of good standing.' Other than being a "lawyer" what claim to fame do you possess?
Larsen, your implication that anyone below the rank of a general is unworthy of belief is sad. Such an ideology is unworthy of you my friend. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2004 : 10:18:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
It's superfluous to point out that the supposedly drunk Reno was correct in his command decision within this story, because Weir and company came roaring back towards safety as soon as he caught the eye of the Indians and they moved on him.
Did not Reno & Benteen join him,with the wounded at Weir point ?
And when the indians advanced they went back to reno Hill minus 1 person Killed. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2004 : 10:49:27 PM
|
Hunkpapa
Reno and the impedimenta never got near Weir Point, Benteen met them somewhere between Reno Hill and Weir Point and they all turned around and headed south. I believe they lost more than one man, but it wasn't the "shambles" that Wild once insisted. It was well done, all told.
In the letter to his wife called the 'narrative' Benteen first wrote after the battle he described Weir galloping off and himself following and when Benteen got about 3/4 of a mile (Sharpshooter) he saw Weir returning under attack. This is either half the distance he went - Weir Point being about a half mile further than the peak of Sharpshooter where the actual 'sharpshooter' was - or it means that they didn't get as far as they later said. This is the basis for my earlier assumptions that maybe only Weir and crew got to Weir Pt. and all the time problem theories in Gray were for naught. It's possible Weir went beyond Weir Point and Benteen could see them returning to that place, and Benteen continued north to WP.
Since then, I've read one too many descriptions of the ride back from WP and passing Sharpshooter on the left. Still, Benteen or any experienced officer is hard to imagine being off by half in such a short distance he could see for the next 48 hours. Page 181 Graham. It's odd. It's also odd Benteen thinks Cooke signed the note Adjt. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 17 2004 : 09:48:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
You have dissapointed so many viewers by not making a selection, come on and be a sport and do so.
You should feel lucky that I refrained from calling you a fool for confusing John Fox with Richard A. Fox, even after you had just quoted John Fox in a post to which I was obviously responding. It just confirmed the impression pounded into us by your past postings: that you can't read. The choices you offered did your reputation no favors, even comically repeating the letter "d" after "e", and from where I sit it looks obvious that I threw you for a loop by pointing out inconsistencies in the Fox story which you should have noticed yourself, and if no one else but me noticed them then I'm surprised. You need to learn how to read these things critically, Wiggs. As you should have noticed long before now, not all stories agree, so you need to have ways to weight them.
quote:
Secondly, to claim that information derived from a private from "D" company who "had no business being there in the first place" probably contends for the most arrogant, unbelievable, obnoxious statement you have made on this forum thus far; and that's saying a lot.
Who are you, but an "Arm chair general" who has never performed an heroic act in defense of your Country, your self, or any one else for that matter, to make such a haughty declaration regarding a gentleman who actually was there.
Private Fox was discharged on Sept. 23, 1880 as a "Sergeant of good standing.' Other than being a "lawyer" what claim to fame do you possess?
Larsen, your implication that anyone below the rank of a general is unworthy of belief is sad. Such an ideology is unworthy of you my friend.
Nice hysterical rant, Wiggs. But what I said is true, and you did not try to refute: as a private in D Company, Fox shouldn't have been anywhere near there. He ought to have been with Edgerly and the rest, out of earshot. The fact is, his story creates problems with the known facts, as even you tacitly acknowledged by refusing to quote the last part of his report of the conversation; that last part, if accurate, basically blew away all the claims you've been trying to make about Weir, and your trying to hide it was not kosher. In any case, that last part is a serious trouble, since it claims that before the talk ended Weir went off with the tacit permission of Major Reno. And that, overwhelmingly, is not how others remembered it. The Reno COI is replete with testimony commenting on Weir going out without authorization, which would make no sense for anyone to say if it was untrue.
I never implied that anyone below the rank of general is unworthy of belief. I spoke of Fox, and Fox alone, and his story has obvious problems, which if you were attentive you would have noticed for yourself. The fact that you refused to quote the last part of Fox's story of the convo (a part which conveniently made hash of one of the points you've been trying to argue) rankles, and suggests you did notice some of them, but chose to suppress them, which if indeed the case is borderline fraud.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Weir Point -- Before & After
