| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 02 2003 : 5:21:59 PM
|
I came to this forum to exchange ideas, listen to some new thoughts and broaden some of my views on the battle. For the most part it is enjoyable.
I do not come on here to be riduculed, abused, talked down to, etc. This unfortunately is the posture Larsen, DarkCloud, or whomever he is takes. He throws out his thoughts. Once you disagree with him he lays down the gauntlet. You then have to be subjected to his onslaught. As I have said before, he is a former radio show host and as he is "former", he attempts to subjugate those he engages.
We all have dealt with people like him in high school and life. Thugs, bullies, etc. They either try to intimidate physically or verbally. I appreciate neither. If he is abusive on here, you can only imagine what he is like eyeball to eyeball. But then again, he might be afraid of someone beating the tar out of him so he could retract.
Hey, he made a post a while back saying he was sorry for being abusive and that he should not have done it. A Zebra never changes his stripes.
So, if you think I have not answered his post or I am avoiding him, you are correct. I find him overly obtuse and in need of conversational manners.
And to hide behind different names and post numbers makes you appreciate what type of integrity we are dealing with.
Again, this is supposed to be a fun forum. I don't think any of us come on here to be abused.
P J Solla
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster2321
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 02 2003 : 6:34:42 PM
|
I'm not Mr. Lawson, and the site master can prove it. You need only compare MAC numbers. Perhaps the moderator can do this as well. I don't believe I've ever indicated any hesitation about signing my stuff or hiding, and I don't join because I don't have to, and lord knows what spam might emerge if I do.
As is fairly obvious, Lawson uses a different computer and setup.
Most people who are attracted to the LBH are men on the outs, and it becomes a substitute for much in life under the guise of research. Perhaps the illustrative examples of lonely death in fear appeals after lives of no distinction. There are exceptions, and everyone thinks they're it, but it is an interesting phenomenon. Militia magazines like Soldier of Fortune attract the same crowd.
Loren Dead pays the penalty for his determined illiterate postings where it is hard to understand who is quoting who or what is being talked about, and then gets all frustrated and angry when people misread or get confused and call him on it. That's before the issue of whether he's just clipping quotes to no apparent end.
Mr. Solla (?) bases ALL on his personal contact with Dr. Fox, and cannot conceive of arguing with him or a time to come when Fox's findings are used to demonstrate vastly different conclusions or shown to not be relevant. Yet, I am hardly alone in that thesis.
When I started posting, the site was lucky to get one a week (go back and look), and had some threads that went back months with no interest. This was because of the complacent, self-satisfied, and often silly postings that had managed to deaden interest in what otherwise is accepted as the best known and controversial event in our history. That isn't true, but it is often depicted as such.
This is not a twelve step support group for fragile egos. Second, the level of GENERAL historical knowledge displayed here is often very low: you cannot understand this battle (insofar as there are mysteries to understand...) without knowing something of the world it took place in. HINT: you don't get this from novels, movies, pretend movies to come, or the ravings of half educated fanatics. Third: there is nothing unique about this battle, how the Army handled itself before, during or after, and how the public perceives it.
And fourth, I still think it awful that people who have never been in combat, then and now, are so over willing to condemn Benteen and Reno or ANYONE who had a record of competence in action before this battle, and hide behind the less than unanimous quotes and opinions of contemporaries, many of whom were never in combat either. That takes a lot of gall, given their commendations during the Civil War.
So just because Mr. Lawson shares some of my tendencies, this isn't a conspiracy, there are a lot of us (and wait till you get in academia...)out there, and you brought it on yourselves.
Be men and deal with it and stop whining. Because it suggests a METAPHOR ALERT that wouldn't appeal to your self images.
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com |
  |
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 02 2003 : 8:13:31 PM
|
What happens DarkCloud is erroneous info posted as fact. Case in question: Philo Clark did physically go over the battlefield in 1877.
Look, we are all permitted our views. Based on all I have read,and I have read a tremendous amount of research, Fox's findings appear to bear out much of what has happened. Will he be proven wrong in the future? Lets see. I still continue to stand by his findings until I see something that proves him wrong. And I have seen several new views that looked good but have fallen apart. At least initially. And if some new theory does place question on something I have read of his, then I will be the first to say, "this new finding is much more relevant.
I don't think that the historical knowlege of the battle is a prerequiste for involvement here. People just enjoy reading and hearing about it. If some are more enlightened than others, so be it. Were not here to chastise. You know that.
And I interpret you saying that the site was not very active until you came along?? I don't think so. Anyhow.
You say "most people who are attracted to the LBH are men on the outs". Does that include you and I?
But really, you have no call to refer to LorenDeads postings as illiterate. This is the crap I am talking about!! That kind of abasing has no place here. And your an intelligent enough guy to understand that!! Come on now!!!!
And yes, your writings and Larsen (you say Lawson. Good try ) are too similar. And you are way to sharp for mispelling names. Theres a common deonominator somewhere here.
Regardless, while you may wish to spew some venom, calling someone an illiterate goes over the line. Thats something I like to think you do not engage in on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
lorendead
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 07 2003 : 5:48:59 PM
|
I had assumed that seeking to find out what happened in our past was a noble endeavor. However, numerous students of the Little Big Horn battle have been treated by so called professional historians as less than serious because their main interest is to seek out what happened. They have been pejoratively labeled “Custer buffs” and have been called bigots, buffoons, and worse. It seems their desire to know what happened lacks a higher and apparently is not as socially redeeming as moralizing between right and wrong.
I did not set out to prove anything in this forum; I am not concerned with assessing blame or debating the morality of war. As history professor William Savage Jr. so aptly stated: “I do believe I have heard quite enough from both sides [the New Left and the Old Right]. I do not care to be… subjected to the cacophony of their respective ranting. I have no interest in the commentaries of thoroughly politicized historians”
I do not care to listen to the cacophony and respective ranting of those people who believe they and their sources are the only ones of historical interpretations. Loren Dead
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
An Open Forum Letter
