| Author |
 Topic  |
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 15 2006 : 11:23:52 AM
|
This "emotional need" to get that Final Word--or to Get Even--is terribly boring. In the grown-up world, it leads to nuclear war, but on the boards, it leads to discussions about anything but what we were here to discuss--but no less destructive.
STOP IT. |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on October 15 2006 11:50:45 AM |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2006 : 2:03:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
High talk for someone who initially made the cockroach reference. That too, is still up.
I used it as a simile for this obsessive and "emotional need" you seem to have to survive--and win--at all costs. I don't regret the statement because it is patently true. No regrets. Not at all.
Besides, had I actually called you the term you mention, it would probably be one of the kinder monikers hurled in your direction. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2006 : 2:14:17 PM
|
So are all of these last few posts statements or testimony?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2006 : 2:59:31 PM
|
| Statements. I swore no oath. Glad to see written language *took* with this squaw. |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on October 15 2006 3:01:25 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 18 2006 : 10:46:01 AM
|
| Of course that is the only way we can see your statements here. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 19 2006 : 10:45:56 AM
|
| That would be the logical conclusion. Score one for AZ ... used to spend my summers in Munds Park not so long ago ... |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 22 2006 : 11:26:45 AM
|
Munds Park is a nice place. They have built a large RV campground there and it takes away from the view in my opinion. I live on the east side of Flagstaff in the Timberline area.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 30 2006 : 3:01:50 PM
|
Yeah, Munds Park has sort of gone downhill since I spent my summers there. They loosened restrictions on building in all parts of the development, and it looks it. Well, it certainly did when I went last in 2003.
We didn't have much of a view where we were--just a hilly south. But as we approached the exit from the south on I-17, there was a nice view of the Peaks just before descending into the valley.
Used to love going to Mormon Lake Lodge to get some steaks and beans. The drive on Mormon Lake Road could be a bit jarring ... |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2006 : 08:06:23 AM
|
I would second that on Mormon lake Lodge. During elk season I have had many a dinner and enjoyed the bar next door. I live on the east side and have views of the Peaks and Mt Elden.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 25 2006 : 10:27:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
It's all still up, Wiggs. People can read it. While calling people "roaches" is a new if predictable low for you, it's all of a piece. What you're upset about is having to defend or explain what you alone have posted: the lies, the plagiarism, the fake quotes, the nonsense, the stuff that means the opposite of what you thought. No erase function here, and it would do no good since people copy these pages.
That you think benthics like Warlord scare anyone pretty much places you in the scheme of things.
Sometimes in life, we hear or read an utterance that totally floors us,not so much regarding the content of the message as the inexplicable audacity of it. For two years, or more, you have brayed like an insidious mule that Wiggs is a "liar, liar, liar." You did so to such an extent that even a few of your conpadres(?) politely asked you to shut up.
Now dear readers, those who are left and, who have not succumbed to the obnoxiousnesses that is d.c, let me espound upon the solitary rational for this individuals quest to classify me in the category that is the lowest of the low; a liar. A while back I posted threads that pointed out questionable decisions by Benteen which could have been construed as a condemnation for his failure to respond to a written order and, his decision to turn "right" rather than assist stranded soldiers left behind by Reno. Of course, d.c. responded with a barrage of condemnation not based upon facts but, pure emotion. My response, "I didn't say Benteen deserted his men" should have been followed by a cravat such as, "his actions may have condemned him." Unfortunately I did not. The rest is history of a sort, d.c's history. His immediate response was a harangue of rhetoric and character assignation that was as repulsive as it was astounding. I could not believe the venom that spewed forth from his odious attacks. For a while I ignored him, hoping to stick with issues, but an overwhelming number of PM's begged me to respond back. Unfortunately, you can't play with hogs and not get muddy. I became as bad as he to my ever lasting regret.
To this very day, I am convince that the vast majority of threaders understood my position even if they didn't agree with it. All of us are acquainted with individuals who will resort to character assignation as a smoke screen to cloud the real issues. It is a common form of debate used for centuries as it does not require any skills, just an obtuse personality. His constant defamation of Moving Robe Woman is simply tiresome. A gifted person who has always displayed fairness and accountability in her threads deserves better.
d.c, this is probably not important to you but, if I had to wager, I bet you can't find two people who even like you. If I am correct, that is so sad.
My only regret is that I,too, succumbed to d.c's low level of communication in my responses to him. Men do not call other men "liars" unless it is face to face. I promise the board that I will no longer engage in meaningless sessions with this individual. Any reasonable comments will be address, All other senseless responses will be ignored.
Sadly, the results of his badgering of other posters is evident by the exodus of truly good friends to other web sites. Devoid of victims, he himself has absconded to another web site. It is just a matter of time before he salts the well there also.
Well, I'm back (actually I never really left)and hope to see my other friends return.
P.S The "fake quotes" you referred to where always referenced with the name and page of my source. You simply,as always, refuse to read a book. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 26 2006 : 6:16:50 PM
|
Wiggs feels safe if he waits long enough - two months, apparently - to try to reply in hopes people only read the latest posts. He has no argument with anyone other than himself for what he's posted over the years, still up. Let's see.....
Wiggs, just who exactly do you think you're fooling? Your denial and your original statement use ALMOST EXACTLY the same words.
THE DENIAL: "I did not charge Benteen with failure to render aid to the troopers left behind on the valley floor."
THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT: "Benteen failed to render aid to 10 to 12 soldiers that HE obsevred being slaughtered in the valley."
That is from page 4 of Benteen's Order thread - page 3 of the threads, page 3 of that thread - as noted by, not me, R. Larson. Wiggs tries to bluff his way out, cannot, denies fact still up. Again, if anyone wants to laugh, it's a hysterical thread to read. Note the words he misuses, sometimes meaning the opposite of what he thought. As well, the fake quotes, the plagiarism. Still up. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 27 2006 : 08:36:54 AM
|
Joe I looked up the threads as suggested and backed up to your first statement.
Brigadier General
Status: offline
Posted - May 10 2004 : 7:16:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. larsen, my point is this: Benteen made an impossible claim regarding the number of warriors in the valley below. This is not surprising when reads an account od his testimony at the Reno Inquiry. He statements were so patently and, obviously, false that many a scolar come to his/or her wit's end trying to understand what he hoped to accomplish. Only by understanding that mis-information, biased perceptions, personal gains, fear of retribution, and a host of other factors were involved in the many statements proffered by witnesses, can we hope to discern the kernels of truth laying in a stream of subterfuge.
Benteen failed to render aid to 10 to 12 soldiers that HE obsevred being slaughtered in the valley. This is according to his own testimony. Hwhen his actions became questioned and scrutinized later, by public opinion, he fell upon his past military experience of watching battallions of troopers on PARADE MARCH, w
It is your post and as others have stated. The bold and underlined is your words.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on December 27 2006 08:38:25 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 30 2006 : 9:05:46 PM
|
Benteen did fail to render aid. I am not accusing him of a vicious or heartless act, I am repeating an historic fact. By his own admission, Benteen testified, at the Reno Inquiry, that he observed a group of soldiers being over run by Indians in the bottom.
At that specific point in time, fate left the Major with two choices, to immediately respond to the aid of these men and, possibly,save them and lose his command in the process or, to turn towards Reno which he did. Were I a betting man, I would wager that the majority of us would would have made the same decision as he.
However, the reality of this choice is that at the moment he made this decision, the men on the bottom were left without a hope or a prayer. This ideology does not automatically translate into a condemnation of Benteen's decision to do so as irrational, heartless, or despicable. It is simply what occurred. It was at this point that d.c. became unhinged. Unable to perceive my verbiage as a "statement of fact" he vehemently began ranting and raving while accusing me of extreme vileness for even contemplating that Benteen would have possibly deserted his men. I can't recall (I presently don't have the time or inclination to research the board)but, I believe I even stated that I possibly would have done the same thing. That was ignored by d.c. who began to call me a "liar" of the worst sort. Unfortunately, I had informed the board that I was a retired Police Officer, a fact i take great pride in.
He, of course, immediately began to ridicule my efforts to share my background with the board by insinuating that I was probably not a real cop or, a bad one at least. After twenty-one years of service, I retired and I am honored to be the recipient of two medals of valor, one of which was for "Police Officer of the Year." I'm certain you can appreciate that and, what such an honor entails.
Az,you voiced your disagreement with me in a factual way. You researched and presented your evidence to the board without resorting to the eternal but, despicable resort of "character assignation" and, for this I am grateful.
Under the given circumstances of the battle, there are a myriad of positions to justify Benteen's decision. However, there are as many positions available that may tend to condemn his decision. It all depends upon the perspective of the one making the judgment.
Any member of his command would have, understandably voted for, "Let's get the hell out of here!" Any member of the troops left to fend for their selves may have looked up at the retreating troops and screamed, "For God's sake, don't leave me!
In summation, everyone is accountable for his or hers decision. Therefore, I reiterate, "BENTEEN (did) FAILED TO RENDER AID TO 10 TO 12 SOLDIERS THAT HE OBSERVED BEING SLAUGHTER IN THE VALLEY."
This statement, devoid of emotional conjecture, is factual; the morality of that decision, pro or con, is not mine nor yours to determine. Nevertheless, any forced categorization of morality regarding this event will not alter the final outcome;any hope of survival for these men were terminated when Benteen made his decision.. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 30 2006 9:19:06 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2006 : 9:09:08 PM
|
| In order to render aid you have to capable of it both in time and force in order to succeed. You can't fail to do the impossible or else everyone failed. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2006 : 10:07:12 PM
|
The attempt to render aid to individuals in dire need of help should be, at least, attempted regardless of the odds of succeeding. The impossibility of any act can not be determined by hindsight. Only because this battle ended in absolute tragedy does the "everybody knows" assumption of "impossibility" is created.
Despite the odds, who knows what may have occurred if alternate reactions/decisions had been made. The reality is no one knows! It is entirely up to the individual or group willing to make such an attempt to ascertain the possibility or impossibility of any act. The impossibility (I think)of success can only be determined after an attempt is initiated. To do otherwise leaves too many questions unanswered. More importantly, final judgment is dangerous when we suppose that we know what action is best regarding a historical event, don't you think? |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 31 2006 10:24:01 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2007 : 12:10:38 PM
|
Joe- I think that is the moral dilemma faced by anyone in charge troops. Do you sacrifice everyone to try saving a few when you don't think you can succeed. Aren't you just as obligated to protect those with you and not put them in harms way with no possibility of success.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2007 : 7:41:36 PM
|
Az, I agree that the moral obligation to protect your troops is essential in a commander. The stench of death that results from war can only be partially resolved when combatants react to each other as humanly as possible. No justification of "right" or "might" can truly eradicate the horror of war. Sadly, war has been and, all ways will be an Albatross around the necks of mankind.
However, my contention, rightly or wrongly, is quite simple. We error when we judge a historical event by its outcome. Custer's command was wiped out, thus there were too many Indians, and so it would have been foolish for Benteen to attempt to change history with a mere three troops and charge, helter skelter, into the thick of it.
This philosophy opens up a very salient question. If Benteen's odds of survival in attacking the warriors were so dismal, how then did Reno get his command from the timber to the bluffs through this same amount of Indians? He went through them! He was able to do so because the Indians were startled by the unexpected "charge" through their mist. They parted like the Red Sea upon the onslaught of a new Moses. They got out of the way. Reno loss a substantial amount of men doing so. What was his obligation or moral dilemma in this situation. What if he had remained in the timber? Is it not possible that these men would not of died? Of course. Should he be held responsible for their deaths? Of course not!
My meaning being this, war is a fluid, ever changing series of events the out come of which can not be predicted. When Weir withdrew from from the hill named after him, there was a distinct chance the hostiles (who hotly pursued) were about to demolish another "bunch" of soldiers. The only thing that saved them were the heroic actions at Godfrey who forced his men to stand their ground (in skirmish) whereupon their controlled, sustained fire drove the warriors back allowing the command to safely retreat.
And so we have two incidents in which the Indians were "parted" and driven back by offensive action. I am not suggesting that Benteen should have or could have charged into the fray. That would be presumptuous of me. It is not, and never has been, my position to judge Benteen. What I am saying is that we will never realize the possibilities of what may have happened to those unfortunates left behind because an attempt to save them did not occur nor was it attempted. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on January 03 2007 7:58:36 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2007 : 09:03:51 AM
|
There is something basic about how the Indians fought and similar to predator versus prey in wildlife. A predator is not going to waste a lot of energy or its life to kill a prey species. Try running away from a predator and see what happens.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2007 : 8:19:31 PM
|
Exactly!!! You have grasped the situation in its entirely. I believe that a substantial portion of the Bighorn enigma is the undesirable realization that the vast majority of the troopers tried "running away from a predator."
Faced with an extraordinary amount of weapons fire and superior numbers, panic among the troopers set in. The rest is history. This is not a statement of condemnation, faced with the overwhelming fury and numbers of the opponent, flight was a logical,albeit, fatal option.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2007 : 9:10:43 PM
|
To bad they didn't realize it. They may have been able to back out and retreat. I don't belive a win was possible.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 10 2007 : 8:05:05 PM
|
This brings up an interesting footnote in which I would like your opinion. I can't for the life of me remember where I read that Custer may have had an opportunity to buy into the ideology that, "discretion is the better part of valor" and, withdraw his forces just prior to the end; but I did!
Apparently, the theory begins with Custer and his command stationed upon Cemetery Ridge where they witnessed the fall at Calhoun Hill, and Crazy Horse's attack against Keogh's command. The theory further promotes that the General could have, at that point in time, left the field of battle as he and his troopers had not been hemmed in as yet.
Instead, he chose to drive towards the fleeing troopers rendering them a temporary refuge on Custer's Hill. This action enabled him to receive the few survivors of the Calhoun, Keogh calamity.
If this possibility is true, the last unselfish thoughts of this supposedly selfish, egotistical man was for his comrades. Once again, I will do research and try to re-locate the information. I hope I have better luck with my research than I did with the attempted identification of Custer's shade. Have you come across similar information? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2007 : 12:46:45 AM
|
I have not. I have trouble with finding anything credible after MTC. There are lots of theories but they lack real evidence. It would not surprise me though if Custer had done such a thing. I would not expect him to leave the battlefield therefore every trooper would be important to remain there.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 11 2007 12:47:16 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2007 : 9:05:30 PM
|
There is a true lack of evidence after MTC, ergo a monumental amount of "theories" are all we are left with. I guess an option to this dilemma is to gather information, screen it with rational perspectives, then digest the mixture with the hopes of achieving possible "probable cause" that has the potential to establish a comprehensive hypothesis of what may have happen.
Ffor example, I went back and did some research and re-discovered a comment by Benteen in the "Reno Court of Inquiry" by W.A. Graham. this version is in a digest form so the complete verbiage of the actual inquiry is absent. However, I quote: "Gen. Custer might have fled the field and saved a part of his command, and I think discretion would have been the better part of valor had he done that."
This statement is not expounded upon in the record and, so we must ask why did Benteen say what he did. What information did he possess to validate such a theory. This from a man who was actually there must, without evidence, still carry an enormous amount of credibility!
Richard Fox dedicated an entire chapter entitled "The Cemetery Ridge Episode" in which he theorizes that Custer observed the "fall" at Calhoun Hill and, immediately responded towards the fleeing troopers, finally arriving at Custer Hill in the process.
What if this were possible. What if Custer had a slim chance of escaping, yet chose not to? We will never know.
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on January 12 2007 9:31:22 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2007 : 02:21:48 AM
|
| Once he saw the village he could have went back. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Indian "Testimony"
