| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 23 2004 : 4:20:46 PM
|
1. Got it. Arrive on the hill, somehow know immediately that you'll be fighting a defensive battle there or at all, wait for train, do it. Also, immediately tabulate dead, wounded, missing, horseless, distribute ammo, have coherent discussion with all officers and Reno, figure out where Custer is, what to do and with what. Avoid going to highest ground to get actual recon of village and enemy size, 'break through' to Custer (apparently you know he needs that) in a manner that doesn't lose the entire regiment. All this with people screaming their stories at you, the wounded, etc. Lives lost in retreat from Weir Pt. totalled how many again? And which casualty after during the siege do you ascribe to Benteen's riding to Weir?
2. Reno never ordered Benteen, but did inform him in a more compelling and certainly overriding fashion than the note did. Big of you to forgive Benteen for doing his job. Everyone was in CYA mode after a defeat. Get real.
3. Orders from who? Reno wasn't available and clearly not all there. No Indians in three compass directions, safe bet all companies wlll be between you and wounded at all times. This is your inner Company Clerk trying to trump activity with procedural technicality. This stuff happens in combat. Did M just go with him or did he order it with him? And what's the big deal if he did?
4. I lambast those who imply Gray's timeline is wrong because it disallows them to play in the sandbox and arrive at the desired goal of slandering someone or other. I've said here for eighteen months that Gray's conclusions are debatable, and I have debated them. His time line suggest Weir and his orderly left at the same time as Edgerly and Co. D. They did not. Not second guessing Gray, his own text supports my position.
5. Weir decided to 'break through' to Custer by his lonesome? How would he know Custer needed this, or was still around? Signal him maybe, but even with one company it's to be doubted he thought that he'd ride to Custer. Reno claimed later that this was Weir's orders, partly so as not to condemn Weir's advance, partly to suggest he himself was in control. He was regaining it.
6. Unintentional desertion? They kept themselves between Reno and the enemy.
7. Rather, let Weir and his company stay out there? Benteen didn't wrest command from Reno and he brought Weir back into the fold without incident. What is the basis for your canard about Weir's imagination?
8. No movement with Benteen was uncoordinated all that day or the next. In any case, who was confused above battle norm after Benteen's arrival compared to before? Without orders from Reno or Custer, you suggest nothing whatsoever could be done? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 23 2004 4:22:22 PM |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 24 2004 : 2:54:07 PM
|
Let's cut the pious verbiage.tabulate dead, wounded, missing, horseless,Nice set of priorities.Trivia which would have no effect on the battle.[what was it you were saying about coy clerks?]
Benteen made 3 errors any of which could have proved desasterious.
1 Handed over command of his troops to an officer you describe as clearly not all there.This as I have said a hundred times before removed 4 troops from the sand box.
2 Wasted precious time doing nothing to improve the situation.He failed to communicate with the pack train.He failed to issue any orders or discuss/reassure his junior officers of his intentions.
From 4.20 to 5.22 Benteen disappears off Gray's time line.
3 Leaves without any orders taking 3 troops in an obvious cowardly CYA exercise.Got
Some points you make in defence
Arrive on the hill, somehow know immediately that you'll be fighting a defensive battle.Well as attack was out of the question instead of the other option defence,this Napoleon of the West deceided to do nothing.
Everyone was in CYA mode after a defeat. Get real.
The truth at last DC.This is what motivated Benteen not what your ealier posts would have us belive dedicated military professionalism.
safe bet all companies wlll be between you and wounded at all times.
An assumption that coy commanders will assume that this is the intention.What a load of *****
I lambast those who imply Gray's timeline is wrong
And
I've said here for eighteen months that Gray's conclusions are debatable,
I'v only used his time line not his conclusions.[i'm nearly sure]
Weir decided to 'break through' to Custer by his lonesome?What has this got to do with Benteen's behaviour?
Unintentional desertion? They kept themselves between Reno and the enemy.
No,Benteen was following Weir and Weir was concerned about nothing but Custer.
7. Rather, let Weir and his company stay out there?
You said he assumed Weir had got orders from Reno.Now you say he took 3 troops ,left Reno and the wounded, in order to escort Weir back????
[i][b]Without orders from Reno or Custer, you suggest nothing whatsoever could be done?
Suggested no such thing.But if Benteen placed himself under Reno why sow confusion by acting without Reno's orders. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 24 2004 : 4:32:24 PM
|
You have to tabulate what you have to work with, Wild. That's not clerkish: tabulation for the sake of tabulation. That's mandatory to know what you have for options. This is an excellent set of priorities which, it is noted, many here refuse to do. If, for example, instead of cavalry you now have infantry, that's something of which you need to be aware and is valuable on the battlefield before you order infantry to do the impossible because you thought them mounted. See? What Army were you in, again?
These actions of Benteen could have proven "desastrous" in that anything could, but they didn't, they obtained the correct information, and led to a more or less efficient defense surrounded by overwhelming numbers.
1. Yes, you've said it often, and been wrong as often. Rather than ride off to unknown recesses, as opposed to the limited foray behind Weir, these troops were available to fight the Indians on ground they chose. And they didn't lose. This isn't bringing them out of the sandbox. The name of this movie is not, nor was it designed to be, nor should it have been, Saving General Custer. It's forcing the Indians back to the Rez by hook or by crook and not wasting the 7th. He turned his group under Reno because he was there, and it was requested, and if he left he would have been ordered to stay, and in any case the train wasn't there to bring forward - slowly - to wherever Custer was, assuming that was what Custer meant and Custer still desired the same thing as he did when the note was written, whatever that was.
Further, Benteen needed Reno's group as much as Reno needed his, both having a sense of the numbers against them, and not even having seen the whole village. You can re-state your 'four troops' quote all you wish, but you haven't defined the sandbox. No need, actually, circumstance in the bodies of the wounded already had, and it didn't include Custer, and the four troops were in good shape and not out of play, were they?
2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If he had not talked to the officers, that would have emerged, wouldn't it? That he could not have instantaneously recognized (a lack which most of your condemnation is based upon) Reno wasn't all there, or the extent of the fiasco (people were still appearing up the slope)and that he, in retrospect, may not have done the precisely correct thing is a limp charge. A great deal WAS being done, based on what was known and reasonable assumptions amid the furor.
3. Are you condemning Benteen for not waiting for orders from Reno to himself to follow and retrieve Weir? Why? Wasn't that what the trumpets were saying? Shouldn't the available ranking officer check out the view from the high ground?
4. He didn't decide to do nothing, he was - for the first time that day by any officer - trying to make a decision based on land, knowledge of the enemy's numbers, and an accurate assessment of their forces available. He didn't know attack was out of the question. He didn't know if the Indians were packing up and leaving. Everyone assumed Custer would leave them and head north if his attack was parried.
5. I've said that before. That everyone realizes there has been a defeat focusses the mind on not being viewed as responsible AND to redeem themselves. Benteen hadn't been defeated, and was the only senior officer who could say that twenty-four hours later. It's quite a jump to go from everyone being in CYA mode to an accusation that this was the SOLE reason for a somehow COWARDLY ride north towards the enemy, when perfectly prosaic reasons existed. You overstate my position, Wiggs like, to affect a takedown the facts deny you.
6. Don't follow. Keeping yourself between the enemy and their goal is neither new nor clever but rather necessary. Benteen did. This is a load of what again?
7. Fine, but you accused me of defending Gray on all counts, and I had not.
8. Because you said Weir had indeed made the decision 'first' to ride to Custer. I doubted that. You now pretend this is irrelevant because we were talking about something else. We weren't.
9. Weir, the noted drunk and suspected close friend of Mrs. Custer, might have been thinking solely of Custer - we don't know - but adults are capable of holding several concepts, some mutually exclusive, in their minds at the same time. If ANYone was in CYA mode, it would have been Weir. One of many examples of you trying to confuse by conflation. You were the one who stated that Weir had decided to break through to Custer, not me. I said I thought he was trying to see where Custer might be, and perhaps signal him.
10. I say he took advantage of the situation to bring Weir back under his wing, among other things, which might include deflecting a rebellion against Reno by some officers before a battle, and keeping the hotheads from riding off to sure fiasco in the future.
11. Sure you do. When you condemn Benteen for riding to Weir 'without orders', what are you saying if not that? You try to make a point about Godfrey and Benteen's contention they thought Weir was following orders and followed him with my assertion that Benteen utilized it to bring Weir and D back and under his wing and keep all the officers on the same page. No conflict there, Wild.
You keep saying Benteen sowed confusion by certain actions, but can provide no examples of this confusion. Odd nobody noticed any attributable to Benteen. There was none because of Benteen's actions, in any case. Rather, he projected command confidence, publicly deferred to Reno, and kept the ship afloat with its structure intact. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2004 : 4:01:56 PM
|
You have to tabulate what you have to work with, Wild.
But where did Benteen ever state that he tabulated the halt and the lame?
He arrives at a disaster.Reno and his troops are out of it.Reno is not in a fit state to command.There is no justification in handing over 4 troops to this man.Reading your posts makes it seem that Benteen's priorities were counting lame horses,dead men, trying to save Reno from humiliation and wet nursing a rogue Weir.
. Are you condemning Benteen for not waiting for orders from Reno to himself to follow and retrieve Weir? Why?
The above is just one point in a whole plethora frivolous trivia which you use in a attempt to smoother the real issue.
Benteen handed over control to Reno and then proceeded to exercise it himself.If you don't condemn Benteen for not waiting for orders you can't condemn Weir or any other officer or trooper who decided to act without orders.In other words no order/system/discipline.
Good Luck |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2004 : 4:45:25 PM
|
He should NOT ascertain his forces?
He was trained to do that, as any officer is trained to do that. That Reno was not fit for the moment may not have been, again, instantaneously obvious. Benteen would have been incompetent if he had not ascertained his forces, Wild. I can easily imagine Benteen getting pulled around the Hill by wounded, what to do with thus and so, where is...., who's that down there, what to do, what happened......
To a degree, all you list as Benteen's priorities are more or less true, not for their own sake, but to ascertain what the strength was, to keep officers on message and NOT riding off like Weir did, but you don't start arguments or discipline people under conditions that might backfire on you, like giving a split command. Benteen kept the command together by, again, publicly deferring to Reno and consulting him always, bringing potentially rogue officers under the command structure, and getting the men to work. He did all that, Wild, and you're being remarkably fatheaded by refusing to admit it.
Sure I can, and do. The point was not 'obey the rule book for its own sake'- your company clerk - but save the day. He did. Things got better, not worse. Benteen did that. Credit, Wild, where it's due. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2004 : 8:47:50 PM
|
"In defiance of his orders, which were to join Custer as speedily as possible-or perhaps on the assumption that he had complied with them-Benteen halted his advance, uniting his command with that of Major Reno.
Why Benteen did not go on is problematical. While he may have been prevented by Major Reno, it is more likely that he felt he had complied with the letter, if not the spirit, of his orders, and was not concerned with what might happen to Custer and his detachment."
Edgar Stewart
The first paragraph summarizes Benteen's action, neatly and effectively, without moralization. It does not describe the act as good, bad, or indifferent; it simply is.
The second paragraph offers reasonable explanations for Benteen's decision, but does not deny that the act occurred.
The reasons that constitute human decision making may be second guessed and debated "Ad Infinitum, as so clearly demonstrated by this poll. Many of the responses, regarding this issue, have failed to meet the criterion of the original poll question. Did Benteen dis-obey a lawful order, and not whether or not he was justified to do so. Posted arguments that promote the ideology that he "did not" do so with a constant disclaimer worded in various ways: He had no choice, What else could he do, He couldn't leave the wounded, they were surrounded,etc. Responses of this nature only serve to assimilate this question with the mathematical equasion PI; it goes on endlessly. The truth is that Bentten did fail to obey a lawful order. Why he did it has already been kicked around the "Barn" for eons, enough already. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 26 2004 : 4:52:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
The first paragraph summarizes Benteen's action, neatly and effectively, without moralization. It does not describe the act as good, bad, or indifferent; it simply is.
So what is it, anyways? Stewart starts off with a heavy assertion --- Benteen acted "in defiance of his orders" --- then waffles on it and suggests Benteen may have figured he had already complied with them. Which if true negates the assertion. I'm not surprised you're impressed by sloppy writing such as this.
quote:
The second paragraph offers reasonable explanations for Benteen's decision, but does not deny that the act occurred.
Actually, it does. How could Benteen act in "defiance" of his orders if he thought he had already complied with them? Stewart tries to have it both ways, apparently in an effort to appear reasonable, and what he comes out with is a soupy mess.
quote:
Did Benteen dis-obey a lawful order, and not whether or not he was justified to do so.
Again, our celebrated legal scholar, I ask you to bring out your law books and show what law or laws Benteen broke. Without doing such basics, your question has always been pointless.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 10:29:00 PM
|
Larsen, Please allow me to apologize for my much, belated response to your gracious description of my heretofore, unknown qualities. "Our celebrated legal scholar." I knew in my heart and soul that if I endured your unceasing, unlettered, fatuous, remarks that have nothing to do with this forum, you would eventually realized what a simpleton you are.
Faced with that reality, you finally see me as your superior in intellect. I'm proud of you! |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2004 : 07:13:25 AM
|
It was sarcasm, Wiggs, but don't let that burst your bliss. While hugging yourself and giggling girlishly to the friendly neighborhood schoolchildren you were probably an easy mark for dimes and candy, and I count that as a favor from me to them. Having to proofread your milch-headed posts is Abu Ghraibian, and those poor kids whose services you've clutched deserve each man's pity, and they have mine.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 26 2004 : 10:38:43 PM
|
| Dear Larsen, are you now admitting that your thread was a mere attempt to degrade another forum member. For shame Sir. If you can not offer meritorious information, then please refrain from such inappropiate remarks. Oh, I'm sorry. You are a lawyer right? Well that explains everything. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 27 2004 : 6:22:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Dear Larsen, are you now admitting that your thread was a mere attempt to degrade another forum member. For shame Sir. If you can not offer meritorious information, then please refrain from such inappropiate remarks. Oh, I'm sorry. You are a lawyer right? Well that explains everything.
No, it was an attempt to get you to back up your baseless claim that Benteen violated military law. You've alleged this repeatedly, but have always been too lazy to support it. In someone with a conscience, that would prompt shame --- but to be fair, I don't assume you have one.
When you're ready to start dealing in facts, rather than preen hypocritically, post them. I'll answer them.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 11:03:49 PM
|
Apparently, you are suffering from a physical ailment that prevents you from visualizing the reality of this particular situation. A subordinate received an order, he chose (for whatever reason) not to obey that order. The rightness or incorrectness of that decision can only be deternmined by a board of his peers. The rationale of Benteen's choice could be determined at that point.
Contrary to your idiotic allegation, the above statement stands on its own as a possible "claim" of what occurred. In other words, you pathetic little clown, it is an opinion. Need I define the term "opinion" for you?
By the way Larsen, "Preen Hypocritically" is the most absurd statement I have ever had the displeasure to read. Put down your Thesaurus because your making a fool of yourself. If I didn't care I wouldn't tell you. That's what friends do. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 02 2004 11:09:03 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2004 : 2:09:32 PM
|
Wiggs, you've never given any evidence that you know what you're talking about. In arguing on the basis of whether Benteen broke a law when he stopped to help Reno, you presume that such a law exists. You were never able, however, to produce any such military law. I don't think you ever tried.
It's stupid to give an opinion on a subject when you don't even know what is at issue. If you want the question to be, "Did Benteen violate a legal order," then crack open your 1870s military lawbooks and do the obvious: find the law he is supposed to have broken. There's no basis from which to have a discussion otherwise.
So stop preening hypocritically, get some dust on your fingers, and produce some researched and informed opinions.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2004 : 7:54:20 PM
|
| Menu: Whine with Cheese |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 10:44:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Menu: Whine with Cheese
Wouldn't it have been cleverer to have done some research, dug up some evidence, and then blown us all away with your knowledge of the subject?
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2004 : 03:08:01 AM
|
I would if I knew of any law that Benteen broke, but I know none. It'd be interesting if he did; not very important, but interesting. It does bother me though how people leap to conclusions without making the effort to cover their ground, or even figuring out whether there is a problem in the first place. 25 pages on this thread and it's all based on a premise never justified.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on October 06 2004 03:11:59 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2004 : 9:14:09 PM
|
Larsen, you seem incapable of comprehending a basic premise of military law known by all members of the Armed Forces (to include veterans) and, most civilians. You, of course, are the exception.
No scholar involved in this field of study doubts that Custer authorized the order to "Come on." No scholar denies that Benteen did not follow that order but, responded to Reno's position instead.
The rationale for Benteen's decision has been discussed forever on this forum. I do not intend to go to the library, check out a book on military law, select the appropiate passage, then print it for you.
How about this, you find a law, any law that says Benteen followed orders! Do that Larsen and I will submit to you a definition of faiure to obey a lawful order.
Lastly, Let me understand your statement. Because you do not know of a law that Benteen failed to obey, this makes you sacrosanct? I realize that lawyers have tremendous ego's but, please give us a break!!!
I truly believe that my menu listing was clever. Let me repeat it for you, with additional comment:
Menue: Whine (your incessant demands) with cheese (your posts in general).
Listen to Warlord, he's giving you some sound advice. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2004 : 10:16:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Larsen, you seem incapable of comprehending a basic premise of military law known by all members of the Armed Forces (to include veterans) and, most civilians. You, of course, are the exception.
All you're doing is blowing wind. Prove it. Cite the law and show how Benteen broke it. Should be simple if your grandiose claims are at all accurate.
quote:
No scholar involved in this field of study doubts that Custer authorized the order to "Come on." No scholar denies that Benteen did not follow that order but, responded to Reno's position instead.
"Come on" where, Wiggs? There's been confusion about Cooke's note from the moment it was received. I don't remember if you participated, but I know that me and several others talked in detail about it a few months ago. There was no consensus among us about what the note was directing Benteen to do. There never has been.
In any case, even if the "consensus" you assert did exist, you would still need to show that it was illegal to stop and help a fellow unit after a disaster. Strange law, if true. But it might have existed in the 1870s. Can you demonstrate it?
quote:
The rationale for Benteen's decision has been discussed forever on this forum. I do not intend to go to the library, check out a book on military law, select the appropiate passage, then print it for you.
How about this, you find a law, any law that says Benteen followed orders! Do that Larsen and I will submit to you a definition of faiure to obey a lawful order.
When I'm the one claiming that a law exists, it'll be my duty to find it. But I have no reason to think there's any law that would apply to Benteen's actions on that day. If you do, then I urge you to locate it and bring it to the board's attention.
quote:
Lastly, Let me understand your statement. Because you do not know of a law that Benteen failed to obey, this makes you sacrosanct? I realize that lawyers have tremendous ego's but, please give us a break!!!
You still don't read, Wiggs. It means exactly what I wrote: I don't know of any law that Benteen violated. You claim you do --- in fact, you claim that virtually everybody ("all members of the Armed Forces ... and, most civilians") does. If that's the case, it should be pretty easy to back up your statements, shouldn't it? The bottom line is, you claim a law exists which Benteen broke in stopping to help Reno. The burden is on you, as the claimant, to prove its existence. Stop being so lazy.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on October 06 2004 10:35:27 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2004 : 10:27:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
I truly believe that my menu listing was clever.
And no, it's not clever. How could it be if making it required no thought? The joke's been a stale cliche for years. You remind me of the guy who copied out "Don Quixote" and therefore counted himself a novelist.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2004 : 5:10:09 PM
|
On rare occassions, we trot out the "old" stuff to drive home a point. Particularly when exchanging barbs with an antediluvian dullard.
There has been some confusion regarding the totality of Custer's message. This is perfectly normal when writing "Notes." Unfortunately, Custer did not have a great deal of time or he could have written (or have Cooke write) a twenty page dissertation outlining his every desire. However, "Come On," is explicit; short and concise.
I am now convinced that your inconprehensible need to get in "the last word" will prompt you to fill this thread with an eternal string of insipid and fruitless platitudes, if allowed. This superciliousness characteristic of yours reminds me of my first wife. For the sake of brevity I won't go into that horror story.
The bottom line comes in three parts Larsen:
1. 26 people, thus far, have voted on this poll with a 50% split either way. Apparently 13 people, other than you, have drawn the same conclusion as I;
(yet I have shown them nothing nor have they demanded anything. Do the words "common sense" apply here?)
2. As I have a life, I will not continue to spend my goodly time dealing with your perpetual, but meaningless demands. I prefer discussing real issues;
3. As Movingrobewoman stated, the beast will go away if you stop feeding it. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2004 : 6:14:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
There has been some confusion regarding the totality of Custer's message. This is perfectly normal when writing "Notes." Unfortunately, Custer did not have a great deal of time or he could have written (or have Cooke write) a twenty page dissertation outlining his every desire. However, "Come On," is explicit; short and concise.
It's too concise. Where is he supposed to come on to? That was what we were disputing over on that thread. Some thought it meant he should come directly to Custer, others that he should just come on to the village and engage the Indians. If the latter, then helping Reno reform and get his act together would have been the only choice possible, if the goal was to carry out the directive. Custer didn't need to write a 20 page dissertation to write an order that made clear sense. Just a few extra words.
quote:
1. 26 people, thus far, have voted on this poll with a 50% split either way. Apparently 13 people, other than you, have drawn the same conclusion as I;
I don't see your point. A healthy percentage of Americans believe that space aliens kidnap people from their homes. What relevance does either have to anything, other than that a lot of people are morons who reach conclusions based on gossamer?
quote:
2. As I have a life, I will not continue to spend my goodly time dealing with your perpetual, but meaningless demands. I prefer discussing real issues;
You're not fooling anybody, Wiggs; it's obvious that you're just lazy and would prefer to make up evidence (see the Sitting Bull dream on the "From the Indian Side" board) rather than find it. That an alleged cop such as yourself would dismiss as "meaningless" a request that it be shown such a law existed in Benteen's time is disturbing, but not something we haven't come to expect from you.
quote:
3. As Movingrobewoman stated, the beast will go away if you stop feeding it.
The trouble is, Wiggs, you can't stop telling lies and making ridiculous claims. You've been called on it so many times and yet still haven't changed your behavior, so that's obvious. The next time you spout some blarney about an "offensive circle," or wag your finger at a soldier for violating a law that as far as you can show exists only in the chasm of your head, you'll be called on it. If not by me, somebody else will. Welcome to the real world.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2004 : 7:48:26 PM
|
Not taking sides in the furball between Larsen & Wiggs, even though I am curious enough now about the military law aspect to start some research myself at Ft. Leavenworth, but I could not resist this no matter how hard I tried!
quote:
an eternal string of insipid and fruitless platitudes
Wiggs, isn't that a case of pot calling kettle black? And, to be honest about it, I have never noticed anyone but yourself posting platitudes (witness the "From the Indian Side" threads}.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2004 : 1:49:09 PM
|
Guilty as charged. However, I specifically used the term "platitude" as it appears to be a favorite description of "all" my posts by Larsen. You might say that my referral to his language usage as "immitation being the sincerest form of flattery" or you might say that I am being facetious towards an eternal blowhard who constantly spews insults in cyber-space.
I have no problem with Larsen. Other than being prone to immature outbursts of insane rhetoric, he has made many fine contributions to the forum. I sincerely hope that he continues to do so for a long time. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 12 2004 1:52:41 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2004 : 4:40:19 PM
|
quote:
Guilty as charged. However, I specifically used the term "platitude" as it appears to be a favorite description of "all" my posts by Larsen. You might say that my referral to his language usage as "imitation being the sincerest form of flattery" or you might say that I am being facetious towards an eternal blowhard who constantly spews insults in cyber-space.
Wiggs, quit that! With comments like the above, you are going to make me think of you having a sense of humor after all.
Personally, I find Larsen's rigorous demand for sources helps me discipline myself to distinguish between "facts" and wishes. As a matter of fact, I only thought of this, but Larsen reminds me of Professor Bond, my history professor at Appalachian State University in the '70s, who, as long as you stayed fact-based, would accept a "left-field" argument but woe to the enthusiast who ventured into the realm of fantasy with no supporting facts.
Speaking of sources, I have a couple of new recommendations for the Research Room thread.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 16 2004 : 8:26:29 PM
|
Billy, I except confirmation of sources as a necessity to ensure positive, informational parameters as well as the next man. I also believe that in discussions of this nature there is room for opinions based on relative information and facts. Thats why I enjoy exchanges between you and, other members of this forum. Contrary to the strigent perspective of Larsen, my conviction that an "order" was disobeyed is perfectly reasonable and does not fall into the realm of fantasy. I do not insist that I am right, I simply believe that such a possibility exist.
By the way, I really have a sense of humor, as evident by my responses to Larsen's insistance that I am a "Liar." 
Billy, I look forward to your research efforts, they are always excellent and they have helped me much. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 16 2004 8:29:34 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
