View single post by javal1
 Posted: Mon May 18th, 2009 02:40 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Grumpy Geezer

Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503

  back to top


I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this back and forth will ever end short of everyone proclaiming you're correct. That's not going to happen. What's ironic is that if you had just come on and posted that Thomas was one hell of a fine officer, I doubt you would have had a single dissent.

Instead, you feel it necessary to demean Grant and Sherman in order to raise the stature of your hero. I honestly don't think many of us understand the reason for this. You then hinge your argument on the fact that you didn't say it, so-and-so did, and mention two books, therefore making those books integral to your theory. I don't understand why you couldn't give those quotes, in context, for the benefit of those who don't own the books. After all, you did say one was in front of you and one was in "the other room", so it shouldn't have been a problem.

You dismiss highly-regarded historians due to their "liberal academic" democratic voting tendencies. Yet you don't mind using Castel as a source when he states something you agree with. After all, he was a professor at a Michigan University. How do you know he can be trusted? Perhaps you asked him how he voted.

You have even asserted one battle a draw rather than a Union loss, contrary to what the majority of historians (and even the NPS) say.

But what I find most troubling is your over-all tone. You convey a rather dismissive disregard for any opinion that does not jive 100% with yours. When someone asks you to expand on a citation, you accuse them of game playing. You have accused people of being close minded when they refuse to bow to your perceived expertise. Frankly, I can't believe you thought you could present your rather controversial view on things and not expect to be challenged. The fact that you seem surprised when you are is just non-sensical.


 Close Window