| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 19 2005 : 2:15:32 PM
|
Simply answer Bob. In 3 parts: 1) everybody can say hello to who he wants, and nobody, no authority, can compell them to do otherwise - unless that this forum it is a neo-nazi club, and I sincerly don't think so. 2) You say hello to people that are ill-mannered, unfair and without respect for others, and I never asked you why you do so.
3)The words "Custer idiots", call soldiers death for Fatherland "CYA", or talk bad about CBHA or LBHA Association could be not gentleman talking, also because those people are not here to tell us they reasons. But I will still say you hello. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
  |
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 19 2005 : 5:19:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by lorenzo G.
...everybody can say hello to who he wants, and nobody, no authority, can compell them to do otherwise - unless that this forum it is a neo-nazi club, and I sincerly don't think so.
Lorenzo: I understand the communication breakdown across oceans, so please allow me to clarify my earlier post. When I referred to "hello", I did not mean it in a literal sense, but figuratively -- meaning, showing the pathetic creature Warlord respect. He deserves none; he should not be posting on this board; he has attacked me from the very beginning without reason. I would gladly meet him at the Denver airport because he is not worth the price of a ticket to California. So, until that happens I’ll have to continue to call him an SOB and a LIAR, over the net, as long as he forces his perversion down our throats in this forum.
I have no problem calling one a liar or a back-stabber to their face; I’ve had to do it several times in my life and in all cases the idiot backed down because he knew it to be true. In one case, it took a 6’ 4” Dakota cowboy to stand between a Custer Idiot and myself to keep me from tearing the bastard to shreds.
"Custer Idiots" is a term I designed years ago. A Custer Idiot is someone who blindly worships Custer to the point that he still considers Indians of today the enemy, and/or he considers women and/or Indian superintendents of the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument enemies (in other words, the Custer Idiot is a racist and sexist) to the point that he writes letters to every senator or congressman under the sun trying to get the superintendent fired from the job, and/or he hates the organization I co-founded, Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield because he thinks the Friends require 50% of its board to be Indian. If they had one pea size brain, they'd see that we have only one Indian on our board -- not by choice mind you.
So, Warlord fits the definition of a Custer Idiot in at least one of the above. I'd bet my house that he fits much more of the definition -- sexist and racist for one.
I would never tell you who to say hello to -- you should know me better than that by now. But, I can question the kind of company you choose to keep.
Bob has left the building...
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on January 19 2005 5:28:15 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 19 2005 : 8:47:08 PM
|
Bob, from the very moment I read your first thread, I have felt you to be a gentleman who is sincere, genuine, and a promotor of information and peace on this forum. I wish I knew as much about the Custer battle as you have already forgotten. My previous thread was meant to espound upon an individual who is the antithesis of you. Where you are kind and sharing, he is unkind and egocentric. You are here because you care, he is here because the forum represents a stage where he may bask in his self-complacency. You would never, intentionally, trod upon the feelings of another human being; he relishes in defaming others. He will be the first to claim, "I have never called anyone a liar except Wiggs because he is a liar." Yet, he will utilize evey negative term, know to man, to ridicule all perceptions posted by others that he does not agree with.
You have always kindly accepted my thoughts and perceptions, even the ones you did not agree with, like a true gentleman. He is the only forum member to continuously,insidiously, and with malice aforethought refer to another member as a liar.
This personal admission may cost me dearly, certainly D.c. will take advantage of it, but I must make it. As God is my witness, should a man, any man call me a liar to my face he would be confronted with a wrath of fury that was established by 57 years of conviction that true men do not particispate in such antics. To call anyone a liar without affording them the opportunity to respond, face to face, is an act of cowardice. My contempt for D.c. is an embarrassment for me. I truly believed that I had transcended such feelings a long time ago; I am in error.
He has revitalized emotions that I truly believe were no longer a part of me. This then, is an explanation for my last post.
It saddens me to think that anyone would believe that my tirade was the direct result of Warlords defense of me. He is more than capable of defending himself. Is it not possible that he surmised the same dark characteristics in D.c. as I? In the beginning, I too made comments regarding his tactics. Eventually D.c.'s insidious responses to Lorenzo convinced me that he is, and always will be, an individual I could never respect or care for.
More importantly, I now realize that I have been partially responsible for the very thing I detest most in D.c., the influx of personal barbs against other members of the forum which is the antonym of all that brought us here in the first place.
Since I am apparently unable to deal with D.c. in a gentlemanly manner, I formerly acquiesce that he is the better man. As such, I will no longer communicate or acknowledge his presence. It seems that, afterall, you were right D.c., I am a liar! To be a liar is the worst social status I could ever imagine. Yet, to allow a dispicable cad like you to get the best of me, I am deserving of such a title. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on January 19 2005 9:17:16 PM |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 12:22:55 AM
|
Joe: I posted a succinct note just before the board crashed. It was in response to a post you made to D.C. and Larsen asking for a truce, to start over so-to-speak. It was a most gentlemanly post.
My response was to thank you for your honesty and to advise D.C. and Larsen to stop their bull**** in calling you a liar. I asked them to stop because they had made their points countless times and I was just flat tired of it.
All those posts were lost because Rich could not save the data.
I think your tactics to ignore D.C. and Larsen are the right move. I’ve done that with WL and it’s quite humorous to see him implode because of it.
I believe you did not lie as Larsen and D.C. claim. Worst case is you may have erred in historical accuracy (I really don’t know), but we all do, and we usually do more than once, twice, and more. Even the best historians make mistakes. These comments are not an invitation to D.C. or Larsen to explain, for the umpteenth time why they think you lied.
I have not lost one bit of respect for you, and I’m sick and tired of D.C. continuing with this liar crap. Larsen, it seems, has indeed stopped and I’m happy to see him do that.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on January 20 2005 12:23:45 AM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 02:30:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
I have not lost one bit of respect for you, and I’m sick and tired of D.C. continuing with this liar crap. Larsen, it seems, has indeed stopped and I’m happy to see him do that.
I'm only bothered by bad facts worming their way into the historical record; once these things get started, they often take on a life of their own. Check out Warlord's gamesites for much adored examples. When I want to talk about this battle I want to be able to know, or at least to show, that Boston Custer was smiling when he met Martini, or that Sitting Bull really had a dream in which Custer spoke to him, etc. etc. etc. I think that's pretty basic, and if we're allowed to play with history by just inventing details then I think we really do it a dis-service.
For whatever reason, Wiggs has become a lot more rigorous over the past few months, using solid quotations, citations, etc., which is good. There really hasn't been much to criticize him for in that respect --- just things to disagree with. There's a difference there and it's one I'm content with. As I've said to him earlier, I'm not someone who holds grudges, and so if it turns out there are no more "Sitting Bull's dreams" he'll find me quite agreeable.
That said, this garbage being said about DC is ridiculous. I think he's been quite fair to all other posters. If he disagrees with you, he'll show you why; if he makes a mistake, he'll own up to it. Pretty damned straightforward, and hardly as common here as it should be. If it were, this board would be a better place.
If Warlord has identified his sole purpose for being here as just being to talk trash to DC, myself, and Bhist, then he's just a clown, pure and simple. If Lorenzo, Wiggs, and Prolar want to egg him on, that's their business, though they come off as idiots in so doing. Warlord has never done anything here but flame people and push upon others his gay fixations. He's a chimp. When he first came on the board he attacked without reason Bhist, Wiggs, and other posters, though even then he was scratching others' backs like something you see in a zoo, looking for allies --- though back then, the guy he was trying to cultivate was DC. People were actually making jokes about it at the time. Dark Cloud, to his credit, wouldn't have anything to do with it, and that you guys would is pathetic.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 09:15:55 AM
|
| Larsen: I have never posted garbage about Dark Cloud or anyone else.I have never encouraged Warlord or anyone else to call names.You are a liar. That is not name calling, it is a statement of fact.Prior to this, I have never had a problem with any poster. I have long thought of you as little more than a Dark Cloud echo, but I have never said so.My exchanges with Warlord have been statements of fact on subjects he is knowledgeable about.I have had disagreements with Dark Cloud, but they have not been hostile. If I come across as an idiot to you, I suggest you ignore my posts. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 10:34:45 AM
|
BHIST:
Custer Idiots" is a term I designed years ago. A Custer Idiot is someone who blindly worships Custer to the point that he still considers Indians of today the enemy, and/or he considers women and/or Indian superintendents of the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument enemies (in other words, the Custer Idiot is a racist and sexist) to the point that he writes letters to every senator or congressman under the sun trying to get the superintendent fired from the job, and/or he hates the organization I co-founded, Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield because he thinks the Friends require 50% of its board to be Indian. If they had one pea size brain, they'd see that we have only one Indian on our board -- not by choice mind you.
This people are, if they are, just idiots. Not Custer idiots. Though There are a lot of equal people in the other side of the barricade, that think Custer is a devil, indians all Saints, victims, and white men the enemy, but I never heard called them idiots. Would be a problem this as is the majority...
I would never tell you who to say hello to -- you should know me better than that by now. But, I can question the kind of company you choose to keep.
I could do the same with you Bob, but I don't.
larsen
If Warlord has identified his sole purpose for being here as just being to talk trash to DC, myself, and Bhist, then he's just a clown, pure and simple. If Lorenzo, Wiggs, and Prolar want to egg him on, that's their business, though they come off as idiots in so doing.
I never used garbage against DC. I never used against anyone else. To DC, and I think he is honest enough to admit that, if usefull, I always answered correctly, giving him back just what he throwed against me. A man that answer defending his positions to someone calling him in a hundred of marvellous manners, I don't think is idiot. He just make count his dignity. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:24:43 AM
|
You know lads if we just all settled down and respected each other's opinions and field of expertise.I imagine everyone here puts some effort into their posts and that should be respected.I for one have enjoyed DC's posts with their insight into human nature and Warlord's posts on the advantages and disadvantages of the various arms of the time.I'm still laughing at Prolars "Wild Buffalo Bill".
We have a good board here why spoil it?
|
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 12:37:24 PM
|
| Great! Is what I hope will happens. Everybody here has is word to tell and also if listen to it or not it's a right of everyone, deserves respect. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 1:13:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Interesting discussion: I would like to clarify one point. I am not here "just to talk trash"!
The simple fact, Warlord, is you are indeed the lowest form of liar there is. You’re opening statement above says you are interested in the LBH and that people attacked you first. Untrue to both.
Your role here is to harass. Not too long ago you harassed me with a PM. I told you to not do that again and reported you to Rich. Today, you proved yourself a liar once again by harassing me with another PM that you sent this morning BEFORE you posted your long lie above.
For the record this is what Warwhore sent me this morning…
“Good to see you back trying to talk coherently to me on the board! How are the calender [sic] sales going? Do you get a percentage off those too?
Warmest Regards
Warlord”
My response to you was, again, to stop harassing me and to advise you that you are breaking the law. I warned you that if you send me another PM, I would report you to the Sacramento Police. BTW – I did let Rich know for the record.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on January 20 2005 1:15:39 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 1:40:18 PM
|
Nobody tries to "make you appear" less knowledgeable, Warlord. You do that yourself in your continuing labors to talk about yourself. As I've said we hold similar judgments of each other. Markland seemed to think you're also Whistlingboy, and I see little to disagree given Whistlingboy1's notes to me on my site. Lorenzo, I haven't the slightest idea what you're saying half the time. So be it. We've been through that. Bhist is welcome to his opinion. If people summon up the courage to call Reno a syphlitic coward and Benteen a traitor guilty of some form of homicide, you'd normally think they'd have the backbone to either prove it or apologize to good US soldiers we were fortunate to have. But you'd be wrong, apparently.
The guys who adore talking guns and ammo as key to this battle (I'd almost claim irrelevance, myself) are still stuck with the facts as known: there is no evidence that the 7th was trained well enough regardless of the firearms they carried. If there are weekly practice reports, or any chronic scheduling of sustained practice, where are they? If they don't exist, how could they possibly have been any good? And how does that meld with the anectodotal comments from officers and others through the years?
There is no evidence against the same Indians in Custer's fights along the Yellowstone that the 7th was much at shooting or at the Wa****a or anywhere. There is no supportive evidence from Kildeer Mt. that the Army in general was. The only relatively large casualties sustained by the Indians would have to include women, children, and the elderly if villages were caught at dawn by surprise as they were by Custer at the Wa****a. The Indians weren't any good either at firearm shooting, by and large.
The 7th had never performed as a complete regiment till that mission, so it's not like they worked as a fine Swiss clock. They had key officers missing. A hundred soldiers couldn't be mounted and were left behind, a fiasco that defies appropriate comment given how far they walked to no end. Custer had much professional and personal pressure to succeed at all costs. Reno was under the gun for his scout not to screw up again, although he showed initiative and common sense. Nobody really understood (we still don't) Sitting Bull's mojo or whatever that attracted not just tribal leaders but individual warriors to join him in such numbers, which was unexpected. The Army itself didn't learn quick. Kildeer Mt. was the closest situation to what happened at LBH, and the Sioux performed pretty much as then, but this institutional knowledge - that large bands of Sioux did NOT always run and they COULD put up a good fight - somehow hadn't filtered down to Custer. Although, he might not have believed it.
Whatever the Indian casualities of the LBH, a good many of them reasonably must have been friendly fire. It was a horrendoplasty from start to finish, nobody knew what was going on -white or red - and it was a fiasco. The Indians fought every bit as poorly as the whites, were every bit as incompetent in their responsibilities to the helpless among them.
Although I'm not a fan of misrepresenting archaeology's abilities to be forensic crime labs, what evidence they have provided doesn't indicate weapons fouled outside the percentage of human error, which is guessed at around 3 to 5% for any endeavor. We still don't know whether the ammo was carbine or rifle, and we don't know if the loads had different failure rates or anything. We simply don't know. And we cannot know. We do know that nobody in bulk complained about the Springfield before the battle as a danger. If the weapon was failure prone, surely sustained practice sessions would reveal this, no? No. Because there weren't sustained practice sessions at regular intervals, at least in the 7th.
The only thing we have as first hand evidence is the testimony of Benteen, Godfrey, other officers some days after the battle. None of them - not one - suggests that Custer's battle was well fought or organized. Godfrey felt Keogh's men were shot running north on foot, a clue surely. Only Calhoun's men had evidence of organized firing lines, and even that's a guess. Indian testimony, so called, does little to challenge this. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 4:01:22 PM
|
DC, just because you say it ain't so, don't necessarily make it so.
quote:
The guys who adore talking guns and ammo as key to this battle (I'd almost claim irrelevance, myself) are still stuck with the facts as known: there is no evidence that the 7th was trained well enough regardless of the firearms they carried. If there are weekly practice reports, or any chronic scheduling of sustained practice, where are they? If they don't exist, how could they possibly have been any good? And how does that meld with the anectodotal comments from officers and others through the years?
My suggestion is that you take a jaunt up to Denver and the National Archives facility there. They have many films of the Returns From Military Posts, 1800-1916, primarily CO, WY, MT, UT and likely NM and AZ. The monthly activity report should indicate whether they had target practice. If that doesn't indicate whether or not target practice was a feature at the post, perhaps the Regimental Returns might.
And, to my way of thinking, the entire deal with marksmanship is somewhat of a red herring. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to hit a target if the shooter is steady. Most people could, with ten minutes of instruction, learn enough to safely operate a rifle and have a decent chance of hitting their target, if man-sized, at 20 or so feet. Do you recall I used the word "steady"? That to me is one of the key elements. Here you have Custer's battalion, many of whom have never fought an Indian, facing what seems like a million of the them, all, it seems, looking for his hair; while at the same time hearing bullets zipping past your ear, seeing arrows land nearby, hearing screams and shouts from his comrades. That does not build steadiness. Then we have two other factors: dispersal and the mode of fighting used by the Indians. The troops were dispersed across a broad front which limited the effectiveness of just pouring lead in the general direction of the enemy, especially as it seems the Indians were not engaging in a full-scale frontal attack but were instead, lurking in the high grass and exposing themselves only long enough to get off a shot at the exposed troopers (and that doesn't count the ones lofting arrows up in the sky to fall heaven knows where). Oh, and I almost forgot to mention the fact that of the 200 or so troopers with GAC, you have to relegate one-quarter of them to a noncombatant role, i.e., horseholders. So GAC had effectively 150 or so men on the firing line, dispersed where they could not have a concentration of fire, against 900-2000 Indian warriors. And we are surprised at the results?
'nuff said,
Billy |
Edited by - BJMarkland on January 20 2005 4:03:31 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 4:21:01 PM
|
Denver? You want me to drive to Denver? That's a good thirty minute drive. I might break a sweat. Heartless of you. Second, I've never seen anyone mention the existence of such information regarding the 7th, and it has to have been picked over by the gun trivia nuts. Third, I hate Denver.
Well, exactly. That's what I don't get about the ammo, firearm issue. You call it a red herring (or at least the marksmanship aspect) and I call it irrelevant, which is pretty close to what you're saying here. Although, "steadyness" comes with the confidence practice as well as experience grants you, neither of which was given to many soldiers. It had to have been terrifying either way.
I'm not hearing support for the Custer Broke the Sioux Military Machine theory. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 4:46:14 PM
|
| Dark Cloud: I find your carping on Libby Custer's finances to be irrevelant to the battle, so I don't join the discussion. If you feel that discussing the guns used in the battle is irrevelant, then stay out of it. Believe it or not, your opinion on every subject is not required. It is obvious that you are more knowledgeable on gossip than guns. |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 6:33:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
bhist: I f you think I am harassing you take your name off the public messageboard! Just precisely what law am I breaking? I would really like to know! I would certainly not break one intentionally! As long as you have a box up for members to send you a personal message other members can send you one whenever and however they wish.
Warwhore-- You really are an idiot.
When one lists their phone number in the phone book that doesn't give anyone the right to call and harass them. That is the law you've broken Warwhore. I've told you to stop harassing me via PM. You have to abide by that or you are breaking the law. Yes, Warwhore, there are now laws on the books, in every state, that protect people from scum like you over the Internet. So, do not PM me anymore.
I will post whatever I want here about the Friends. You really don't care what the organization does or how we raise funds. You're PM to me was not intended as a friendly one; you're completely incapable of such an act.
So, for the third time – if you can read English (we all know you can’t write worth a crap) -- No more PMs from you to me or you will have the Sacramento police calling you and a report will be filed. I don't like scumbags bothering me and that, especially, includes you.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 7:12:45 PM
|
Prolar, I haven't carped on Libbie's and Custer's finances. I pointed out, once, that Custer left her broke. I was accused on being incorrect, and I defended myself with quotes under attack. That's not carping. Nor is it gossip. It's annotated fact.
I'm also not convinced that some of the gun authorities here are any more than an issue of Guns and Ammo or Soldier of Fortune ahead of us laymen, although virtually anybody could know more about guns than I do. I've never claimed any such expertise, or any expertise.
Further, for any of it to be relevant, you'd have to prove that the soldiers actually were well versed in their usage, wouldn't you think? That's lacking, the archaeology doesn't help you, the admitted history of the 7th doesn't help you to LBH. Ergo, whether they fumble loading a rifle or carbine round into the Springfield or a magazine into an Uzi isn't the point. Whether a .45/55 or a .45/70 isn't relevant. Fun to talk about, apparently, but not really relevant to the battle, because they weren't trained well as a regiment in any firearm. I haven't proven that, but it's a safe bet that were it not true the Custerphiles would have had the evidence out from Day One, because the quality of the Frontier Army was discussed at some length from June 25th on.
It's an opinion stated and posted, and I have a lot of opinions. You can ignore them or not, no matter to me. Why Custer and his unit ended up where he did is of interest. The pressures on him to succeed for financial reasons - and I hardly put that first among his concerns - were enormous. And more important than the calibre of someone's sidearm or wind compensation over a 500 yard shoot. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:11:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
bhist: If it is already there, why don't you put it up here! Exactly what do you get out of these book sales, etc.?
...
I am simply asking what you get out of these book, calender, print sales. Do the proceeds all go to your organization or do you earn a portion of it somehow? I don't think that is too much to ask for an explination to the messageboard you are trying to sell them to!
Five minutes on Google found this at the Internal Revenue Service list of charitable contributions:
quote:
Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield Crow Agency MT USA --
The URL for anyone to look for themselves is:
http://apps.irs.gov/app/pub78
Under Search, use criteria "includes" and the keyword "Battlefield" (leave out the quotes) and the results should have it midway through the second page.
Billy |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:13:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
I am simply asking what you get out of these book, calender, print sales. Do the proceeds all go to your organization or do you earn a portion of it somehow? I don't think that is too much to ask for an explination to the messageboard you are trying to sell them to!
Read the website for fund raising. I will not personally waste any more time with your pestering.
I have not threatened anyone physically. I have simply warned you of harassing me, which could result in charges being brought against you by the police.
Go ahead; send whatever you want to anyone. It is you would be embarrassed. But, be careful; rewards for slander are lucrative.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on January 20 2005 11:18:00 PM |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:43:16 PM
|
Warlord/Warwhore: You are worse than I thought.
You have no right to question or even bring up how I handle my personal business.
So, tell us, Warwhore how much social security a month do you get? How much pension do you get from the government? What organizations do you contribute to? How much of that do you deduct on your taxes?
My personal business is none of yours.
You sir should crawl back into the hole you came from.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on January 20 2005 11:43:57 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 04:49:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen: I have never posted garbage about Dark Cloud or anyone else.I have never encouraged Warlord or anyone else to call names.You are a liar. That is not name calling, it is a statement of fact.Prior to this, I have never had a problem with any poster. I have long thought of you as little more than a Dark Cloud echo, but I have never said so.My exchanges with Warlord have been statements of fact on subjects he is knowledgeable about.I have had disagreements with Dark Cloud, but they have not been hostile. If I come across as an idiot to you, I suggest you ignore my posts.
I refer to this pretty little exchange:
Warlord: "Once again Lavender Cloud you display your grand ignorance in pathetic little attempts to feign knowledge of some subject!!! Lorenzo/Whislingboy great posts! It is so refreshing to see people making legitimate posts trying to share genuine information with all! If we could keep a real diologue about real facts going like this, than the two vanity posters could be ignored!
Keep up the great work guy's. Ignore the vultures." (Jan. 17, "On Custer" thread)
Prolar: "Warlord: I, for one, enjoy Whistling Boy's posts. If he is you, keep it up. Ignoring the two trolls posts might be the best solution. I guess I'll struggle with them for a while yet. " (Next response, same thread).
I didn't know I had any problem with you either, until this posting. Who are the "two trolls" that you and Warlord are commiserating about?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 04:56:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by lorenzo G.
[b]I never used garbage against DC. I never used against anyone else. To DC, and I think he is honest enough to admit that, if usefull, I always answered correctly, giving him back just what he throwed against me. A man that answer defending his positions to someone calling him in a hundred of marvellous manners, I don't think is idiot. He just make count his dignity.
I agree - I cannot show where you personally acted unfairly towards another poster. I refer only to your encouragement of Warlord; maybe there's some kind of language barrier at work, and Warlord doesn't come off as offensive to you because English is not your first language, but I'm telling you it's just ridiculous.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 08:49:25 AM
|
Larsen, I'm glad that you agree. And I can assure you that I understand that Warlord use hard language, but, is'nt true this language is coming back to him? To make war, we say here, must be in two. Warlord with me he have always been gentle and so I have nothing to complain about him. Then I want to tell also that I never encourage him or anyone else to make war to another member. And, several times instead, I ask to the fighters to come back through the subject of this board, as, for exemple in this case:
lorenzo G.
Lieutenant
Italy
Status: online
Posted - January 05 2005 : 09:49:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH! If Benteen could read these lines, he surely would state with a smile: "Oh, guys it's getting a pretty hot affair..."
Hope we'll back soon in the Battle discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Then I ask: cannot start again all? Can we stop this war to enjoy a mine of informations and views as this board could be? I really would like it and, I think, much people here would like it too that old hate is forgiven and forgot. What do you think? |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 09:33:29 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Denver? You want me to drive to Denver? That's a good thirty minute drive. I might break a sweat. Heartless of you. Second, I've never seen anyone mention the existence of such information regarding the 7th, and it has to have been picked over by the gun trivia nuts. Third, I hate Denver.
Well, exactly. That's what I don't get about the ammo, firearm issue. You call it a red herring (or at least the marksmanship aspect) and I call it irrelevant, which is pretty close to what you're saying here. Although, "steadyness" comes with the confidence practice as well as experience grants you, neither of which was given to many soldiers. It had to have been terrifying either way.
I'm not hearing support for the Custer Broke the Sioux Military Machine theory.
We agree on something????
Tongue firmly in cheek,
Billy |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
