| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 13 2005 : 5:58:47 PM
|
It isn't yours to give, Wild. I've said no wrong. Your argument is on the level of screaming at me because I'd suggested that you get off your white horse, pointing out you never claimed you had a white horse and I'd never seen you on one. You and Wiggs have pretty much sunk to the level of the schoolbus again, conferring forgiveness and praise in conversations designed to be overheard. Good grief.
You continue to position the Indians as Noble Savages. It's probably because - as was clear with aborigine - you don't know what a savage is, with or without Rousseau. It's only a member of a primitive society, the very definition of the Indian. You continue to view them as perpetual victim, noble in their woes. Their fate was always in their hands had they the foresight to listen to their more adept actual prophets of the new realities. They failed. They lost. Happened to my people and to yours. Big deal. Happened to everyone at some point. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 6:46:27 PM
|
The references Wild has made regarding the Native American are embedded in his utilization of descriptive words of "Humanism" when he addressed historical issues regarding their treatment in this Country.
To paint these "savages" in any other light then heathen will cause discomfort in some who will respond with the typical "Noble Savage" syndrome. Wild has said nothing in his threads that would indicate that he likes, dislikes, hates, loves, or even cares about the Indians. He merely reports, sans accolades nor condemnation, his interpretation of their treatment at the hands of the U.S. Government.
His comments do not make him right, nor do they make him wrong and, they certainly do not magically transform any group into a non-existent category signified by a quaint, rhetoric term.
Where then does this insinuation come from. What statement, phrase, or referral did Wild post that would validate D.c,'s accusation? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 07:43:49 AM
|
I suppose that the one basic rule on a discussion board is that one protects the integrity of ones posts against baseless distortion and misrepresentation.
DC has misrepresented my position and when challenged he offers nothing substantive.He cannot even provide one single quote to verify his claim.He relies entirly on his Will o the Wisp verbal coloring book to yet again screen his blatant distortion.
He now accuses me of screaming at him and here I was thinking I was the epitome of restraint and moderation.Really DC I don't need to scream,just let me whisper it in you ear.You are a blatant distortionist. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 09:15:19 AM
|
You continue to position the Indians as Noble Savages. It's probably because - as was clear with aborigine - you don't know what a savage is,
This is classic DC.He attributes a false position to me based on the word "savage" which I have never used then[and this is where it gets really scarey]he says I don't understand the word "savage".
 |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 10:05:25 AM
|
Actually, I think I first used "noble savage" or at least "Lo" when rebutting Wild's more ludicrous comments.
Guys, if you are going to castigate DC for false accusations, please don't leave me out, nor Wild. Wild has made many inferences that the official U.S. policy towards the Indian was genocide. He bases this upon a modern definition created by the prosecution during the Nuremburg Trials and later codified by the United Nations. If you have the time, feel free to go back several pages in this thread to look at them.
Yet, when requested to furnish primary source evidence of the inference he is unable to support his case. I seem to recall he furnished three nice quotes from the Indian perspective - I may be wrong in that so don't hold me to it - but nothing proving or even coming close to proving that his "genocide" was officially sanctioned by the government or was even wanted by any majority of the population east of the Mississippi. Off the top of my head, the only thing he could point to as being officially endorsed was the slaughter of the buffalo herds which essentially deprived the Plains Indians of their supply chain.
Billy
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 10:34:35 AM
|
I never said you used the words "savage" or "noble savage." I said you continue to present the Indians just as Rousseau did: as Noble Savage.
Your objection to this seems devoid of any understanding of Rousseau or the use of the term for centuries, so I assume it was because you didn't understand the meaning of the word 'savage' as your postings clearly underline the fact you didn't know the meaning of the word "aborigine." |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 2:58:51 PM
|
As we all read, peruse and take sentences out of context from our readings we always have to ask ourselves if this 'stuff' I'm reading subjective thought or undeniable and therefore confirmable fact. Quoting a sentence out of a book is hardly evidence or proof of anything but usually an offering of maybe "this is how I think." It is so easy to misrepresent what someone writes unless everyone has the same meaning in mind for the words being used. Then it is difficult to understand the intent.
For example, DC, in your reply to my last post, which I do appreciate, by the way, you wrote "...and if they hadn't found the need to head East to conquer Europe it's probably because there was still a lot of empty space in the western hemisphere." That is your reasoned answer to why they lacked ambition to seek out and conquer other lands? Prior to the 'invaders' do you think they even knew or dreamed of the expanse of the western hemisphere? I am not denying that they were ambitious in their own 'backyard', who isn't? But I propose that they only wanted to keep and protect what was in their own 'backyard.' In other words, they either didn't have the ambition, the foresight, or the smarts to advance much past their ties with nature.
"Being technologically inept or behind isn't evidence of superior nature appreciation or closeness..." Well, I am not saying that they were closer to nature and its spiritual tidings because they weren't smart enough or interested enough (ambition) to learn from their environment and how to make life easier for them all. On the other hand, the Europeans didn't seek out other lands to conquer mainly because of over crowded conditions back home either. They certainly had more initiative. And they didn't want to just maintain the 'status quo' like many an Indian group. They were seekers who had the ability to think ahead for whatever the reason---greed, power, fortune, land, etc. And like I said, the plains Indians were 'status quo'
minded--defensive oriented. They just wanted to be left alone. They were not in control of their lives enough to know how to organize to fend off the easterners or to best protect their lands. The Eastern establishment had a vendetta, a plan of expansion---an ambition----offense put in effect. Unfortunately, it meant usurping all the lands which the Indians knew to be theirs. In Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' world, they had not prepared and it cost them and whether it was right or wrong became a moot point. The Indians were ambitious in the world they knew but didn't have ambitions to seek, find and conquer other 'worlds.'
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 3:53:19 PM
|
Hi BJ
I think I said that because "genocide" was so emotive a subject I would not engage in further discussion on it, however you have raised it again and described my comments in relation to it as ludicrous.
Now if memory serves me correctly I believe your rebuttal drew on such as the film "dances with wolves".So if you want to debate this at a serious level I would suggest you to revise your sources.
Now could I refer you to Article 2 of the UN Convention which states Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Now as the crime of genocide was not defined until 1948 we are for the sake of this discussion making it retrospective.
My position is that it was the offical policy of the US government to deliberately inflict on the group[s]/tribe[s] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
To wage a war of aggression involving massacres and attacks on noncombatants,to forceable remove groups from their homelands,to confine them,to pursue a policy of offically sanctioned murder of Indians off the reservations,to allow its citizens to slaughter thousands of defenceless Indians are crimes against humanity and under artical 2 genocidal.
Best Regards
DC
Your position is untenable.You still provide no quotes to support your claim and you base an assumption that I don't understand the meaning of the word "savage" on a false assumption that I did not understand the word "aborigine".A false assumption based on a false assumption?
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 4:40:47 PM
|
Not emotional to me, just your wanting it to be true doesn't, as the song from Porgy & Bess goes, "...make it necessarily so."
My only comment regarding "Dances With Wolves" was that you had been watching it too much and needed to discard it.
Exactly when was Article 2 written? Attempting to fit historical events into modern legal sensibilities reeks of, what is the term historian's use - can't remember it but will find out later, revisionism.
quote:
My position is that it was the offical policy of the US government to deliberately inflict on the group[s]/tribe[s] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
We know that is your position, and again, I do find it ludicrous. It is the official policy of any government when at war with groups of tribes, nations, whatever, to inflict "...conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
I can, and will, gladly admit that greed among hundreds of whites caused many of the wars to be fought. However they started, it was not the peacetime policy of the U.S. government, nor the wartime policy to get right down to it, to inflict what is now called genocide. The policy was to peacefully coexist, in one fashion or another with the tribes.
quote:
To wage a war of aggression involving massacres and attacks on noncombatants,to forceable remove groups from their homelands,to confine them,to pursue a policy of offically sanctioned murder of Indians off the reservations,to allow its citizens to slaughter thousands of defenceless Indians are crimes against humanity and under artical 2 genocidal.
Wild, when at peace, troops did not attack villages or areas where noncombatants were. However, the tactical advantages of the plains Indian made that recourse necessary during times of war.
Prove to me that the government sought or approved "...a policy of officially sanctioned murder of Indians off the reservations..." or that thousands of defenseless Indians were allowed to be slain. For every dead Indian noncombatant you bring me, I can bring up equal and more than likely greater casualty totals for the "white" side.
Wrong was done, there is no doubt, but to imply that our dealings with the Indian was deliberate racial cleansing/genocide is beyond the pale and if not so serious a charge, would almost be laughable.
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on March 14 2005 4:43:56 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 5:46:17 PM
|
Exactly when was Article 2 written? Attempting to fit historical events into modern legal sensibilities reeks of, what is the term historian's use - can't remember it but will find out later, revisionism.
Yes agreed.Genocide had not been legally defined until 1948.
We know that is your position, and again, I do find it ludicrous. It is the official policy of any government when at war with groups of tribes, nations, whatever, to inflict "...conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
Not so my friend.Never the intention of the US or the allies to destroy the Germans or Japs as nations.It was the intention of the US government to destroy the Indians as a nation/tribe/group.That where the difference is.The Indian survivors ended up as just so many individuals confined to reservations.
Prove to me that the government sought or approved "...a policy of officially sanctioned murder of Indians off the reservations..."
"In July and August, 1859, Thomas commanded the escort that had charge of moving the Indians from their reservations in Texas to Indian Territory. Thomas was full of energy. He thought it a good opportunity to take the field. On October 1, 1859, he set out from Camp Cooper with Companies C, D, F, G, and H on the Cimarron Expedition to the Red River country and the upper waters of the Canadian River. The command moved to a point 38 miles west of the 100' west longitude, thence north and west near the Cimarron River, followed an Indian trail until a herd of buffalo obliterated it, and then returned to the Supply Camp on the Canadian River, October 31st. This scouting through the country had a good effect on the Indians and kept them on their reservation. The year before, General Twiggs had issued orders to consider all Comanche Indians off their Reservation hostile and they were to be treated accordingly."
or that thousands of defenseless Indians were allowed to be
slain.
My source for this is 500 Nations by Alvin Josephy and Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.If you insist on the exact quotes I will provide them .The sources cover the massive slaughter of the Yahi Indians during the gold rush.
For every dead Indian noncombatant you bring me, I can bring up equal and more than likely greater casualty totals for the "white" side.
Can you tell me when and where 2000 whites from a single group were massacred?
Wrong was done, there is no doubt, but to imply that our dealings with the Indian was deliberate racial cleansing/genocide
But you see BJ only the Indians were singled out for this treatment.There was no policing or confinement for hostile whites.Thus it was a racist policy.
Best Wishes |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 8:48:04 PM
|
| I do not wish to add fuel to the fire, Lord knows it has burned long enough. I am somewhat puzzled. A member of this forum misrepresents the threads of another. The injured party reacts in a normal fashion and request that this misrepresentation be acknowledged and accounted for. Have I missed something? |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 12:55:02 AM
|
quote:
But you see BJ only the Indians were singled out for this treatment.There was no policing or confinement for hostile whites.Thus it was a racist policy.
I really need to get to bed so I will refrain from digging into books and dissecting your arguments comprehensively at this time.
One thing though.
A racist attitude/policy I can agree with, but, the last I hear, racism does not equate to genocide without actions to commit wholesale and systematic slaughter of the racial group. That is the point you have failed to prove despite all your yammering.
More later, to everyone's regret.
Billy
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 06:15:34 AM
|
A racist attitude/policy I can agree with,
Well that's a big admission from someone who regards my position as ludicrous.So we have a racist government who use a form of forced apartheid to destroy the Indian tribes/groups as such.In other words--(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Genocide under article 2c.
but, the last I hear, racism does not equate to genocide without actions to commit wholesale and systematic slaughter of the racial group.
Article 2b states Killing members of the group;not wholesale slaughter
That is the point you have failed to prove despite all your yammering.
I believe the murder of the Yahi was no different from what happened in Rwanda and would offer this as an example of wholesale slaughter.
All my "yammering" means you have to do some serious research to rebutt my comments.
Have a good nights sleep and have a go at it when your mind is refreshed
Best Wishes |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 10:33:49 AM
|
No ,Wild, your ridiculous attempts to cover the fact that you clearly thought calling someone an aborigine was a racist taunt - your exact initial accusation, by the way - are still up. It's clear as a bell, as bad as anything Wiggs has fumbled, and that's quite bad. And you never apologized, but launched into a protective barrage of nonsense. Who you fooling? It's still up.
And your false accusations about the nature of my 'noble savage' observation are still up as well.
When I screw up I have no problem apologizing or admitting it. Of those of us who do this, I'm the only one. You don't, Wiggs' cannot, Warlord is too insecure and supersensitive to admit the obvious. Others. Numerous examples up.
It's a forum, not a peer review, and getting things wrong and saying dumb things based on a poor reading (I've done that several times) and being caught at it (or not, which is equally embarrassing, but not for me entirely....)isn't anything more shaming than a suppressed burp at recess. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 15 2005 10:46:14 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 12:30:38 PM
|
DC
Sorry DC not going there because you have no quotes or proof.
To repeat you have blatantly misrepresented my position and you cannot provide this board with any substantive proof to support your inaccuracies. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 8:51:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
No ,Wild, your ridiculous attempts to cover the fact that you clearly thought calling someone an aborigine was a racist taunt - your exact initial accusation, by the way - are still up. It's clear as a bell, as bad as anything Wiggs has fumbled, and that's quite bad. And you never apologized, but launched into a protective barrage of nonsense. [quote]
Who you fooling? It's still up.
Firstly, just once my friend, for just one moment in time is it not possible that you can argue with others and not mention my name? Your fixation with "Wiggs" is becoming obvious to a lot of members.
Secondly, you left the verb out of "who (are) you fooling?
"It's still up" means exactly what?
Now D.c, I sincerely do not wish to badger you at every turn (sound familiar?) but, your reference to Warlord's being "insecure and super sensitive" following your denunciatory speech against numerous members of the forum is reminiscent of the adage; "and the pot called the kettle black." |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 12:31:18 AM
|
OK Wild, what part of genocide do you not understand?
It is the organized, systematic destruction of a racial group.
Note: If you bother looking, you will find that my definition makes more sense than yours.
So now your argument is that bias, if against a specific race, in your mind equates to the organized destruction of a racial group?
Get off it. Again, I advise you to stop watching repeats of "Dances With Wolves".
However, going serious, the "massacre" you mentioned concerning 2,000 Indians, would you care sharing some documentation about that? Honestly, I haven't never heard of it, my focus is on post 1864, but it would be interesting to research.
Billy
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 05:04:29 AM
|
I really need to get to bed so I will refrain from digging into books and dissecting your arguments comprehensively at this time.
Your last post was hardly an attempt at disection.I would have expected much more from our illustrious researcher.
It is the organized, systematic destruction of a racial group.Well your are 25% right.There is also the question of national,religious and ethnic groups.
The US government organised and put in place a racist system with the intention of destroying the Indians as a group.That system involved military action resulting in the killing of members of that group.It involved the forceable removal of the group from their homelands.It involved the acquiescence in the destruction of the buffalo herd on which the group depended.It involved forceable confinment in concentration areas.It involved the use of special police and murder to enforce these inhuman conditions.
This system deliberately imposed conditions calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction in whole or in part.And that my friend is genocide.
Now I know I am alone on the board in holding that view.Even Joe [sorry Joe I know you don't like being refered to]who would be sympathetic to the Indians would not go that far.So just to broaden out the issue a little let me suggest some reasons why the term genocide would not be acceptable to the Americans.
I would suggest it is because such a great nation developed out of this destruction.Why spoil the good feeling?The failure to identify with the Indian.Just to use DC's words "just another bunch of aborogines".To accept that Genocide occured is to place the US alongside histories Pariahs such as Hitler and Pol Pot.It is my understanding that the US would only sign up to the UN convention when it was assured that it would not apply retrospectively.And anyway it's all history and it was a successful genocide leaving no champions for a lost cause.
Firstly, just once my friend, for just one moment in time is it not possible that you can argue with others and not mention my name? Your fixation with "Wiggs" is becoming obvious to a lot of members.
Don't worry about it Joe I always take the comparison as a compliment from our friend.
BJ again
However, going serious, the "massacre" you mentioned concerning 2,000 Indians, would you care sharing some documentation about that?
Guns Germs and Steel refering to the destruction of the Yahi tribe at the time of the gold rush in California.Page 374---"As one example the Yahi tribelet of northern California numbering about 2000 and lacking firearms,was destroyed in four raids by armed white settlers. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 12:05:58 PM
|
"Noble Savage" is one of the stereotypes created in literature. The images of wagon burners, village burners, settler massacres, ect., ect. came along with dime novels and, of course, Hollywood. Interpreting someone's views to endorse the former or one of the latter isn't unfair or necessarily inaccurate.
It's the stereotypes, themselves, that are inaccurate. A good discussion here gets bogged down in a tar pit of self-absorbtion. I would think that most of the minds here are far better suited for more scholarly exchanges---about the forum's subject matter rather than its participants.
As for genocide and Indian Country, perhaps a better word is genocidal. Sand Creek, for example, was not genocide but Chivington and company were, we probably agree, genocidal. The Pequot massacre in Connecticut (1660?) was genocidal. The Bear Lake massacre in Idaho (1864?) was genocidal. Of course, there were others. And, of course, disease, deliberate or otherwise, had the most devastating effect of all.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 12:48:34 PM
|
Heavyrunner: "I would think that most of the minds here are far better suited for more scholarly exchanges---about the forum's subject matter rather than its participants."
Bravo! Maybe establishing some guidelines so to help us all address our 'constructive' criticisms to the subject at hand would be a better presentation to the 'world' that frequently drops in and views some of the remarks here on this forum. It would be more exciting, rewarding and a less waste of time. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 1:11:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
Heavyrunner: "I would think that most of the minds here are far better suited for more scholarly exchanges---about the forum's subject matter rather than its participants."
Bravo! Maybe establishing some guidelines so to help us all address our 'constructive' criticisms to the subject at hand would be a better presentation to the 'world' that frequently drops in and views some of the remarks here on this forum. It would be more exciting, rewarding and a less waste of time.
Agreed! It seems we have a bunch of board followers who report about our "stupidity" and our lack of "credentials" at other Custer-related outfits (like any of them have a history degree) ... in fact, our trails have gotten so attention, I'm about to offer them a membership in my fiction writers' group--just so they can oogle some more on our private Yahoo listserve! But back to the subject at hand, on the whole, this has been a positive board to visit--and time here is NEVER wasted! Let's all behave and be welcoming to the "visitors!"
Well, except for Paul ... hehehe ...
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 3:55:50 PM
|
Warlord--
I have always liked Loren Dead and his posts. There is nuttin' sadder than to see an organised or disorganised attempt to throw people off a board over the simple fact of different interpretations regarding Custer and/or his lifestyle. In fact, once I was told at another, supposedly "scholarly" place to not use book quotations to back up my research and go on simple opinion! What is up with that?
But yeah, GAC was a gambling, womanising "fiend ..." Right. And don't forget about his many drunken nights with the Seventh ... even Van de Water (my personal favourite) doesn't go that far.
So, like can we use quotes? Or is that my lack of scholarship showing? Should I ask for Phi Kappa Phi to revoke my lifetime membership?
Everyone: be sure to wave at the friendly folks on the bus driving by Against All Odds ... and remind them to quote me correctly!
Let the brawls continue! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 5:17:29 PM
|
Brawls, shmawls....
I want an invite to Phi Kappa Phi's next Toga Party. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 5:25:02 PM
|
Maybe that has to be put to a question, Warlord. Should the forum be a place of scholarly exchange? Sounds rather complex, doesn't it? Sounds rigid and cold, in some aspects. But it would cut down, to some extent, many of the derisive statements and disparaging remarks that constantly permeate the posts. Or is that wishful thinking?
How does the forum accomodate all the different personalities and yet maintain a respectable posture?
Maybe not everyone wants a 'clean' sounding forum? Maybe some contributors just want to run 'interference.' Maybe some of us are 'jealous' or 'manipulated' or too 'sensitive' to be able to read between the lines, at times, at what is thrown back at us. If any of that is true and I'm not saying it is, then the focus is wrong. The 'thread' should be the priority and a contribution about that thread and its rebuttal should not be in the form of an 'attack' on the 'personality' posting the idea.
You hit the 'nail on the head' when you talk about all that has been written about the battle by would-be and wanna-be 'historians and translators' and the volume of half-truths, no-truths and some-truths that have been manipulated and passed on by them all,not to exclude the government.
In lieu of those who probably need to "get a life," the study of this battle and the life of George Custer has become an obsession, a hobby, a motivation or an excuse. Battle lines are drawn, sides are chosen, impressions are formed in cement and 'battle' rages on in forums such as this over subjective material laced with the many 'faces' of the truth, now so far removed. We arm ourselves with what we think we know by saying 'this source' is better than your 'source'
when in fact both 'sources' were probably far removed from the 'primary' source. It is really confusing who the real 'liars' are in this whole historical episode. However, calling ourselves 'names' creates only tension and stress for many of us who probably come here for a break from the daily routine, replete with its 'stresses' and 'demands.'
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 10:11:55 PM
|
| You're right Wild, it is a compliment. Thank you D.c. This is the first time you have ever done something nice for me. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
