Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Who's posting here?

Expand Messages
  • scotty90900@cs.com
    ... _Taken At ... Ray Ortensie has already suggested that for his morecivilwar group. why be redundant? I think you should find an active group. This one is
    Message 1 of 14 , May 25, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In TalkAntietam@y..., "Anthony W. Turner" <awturner@m...> wrote:
      > Might we have a book discussion, say one chapter per week, on
      _Taken At
      > The Flood_?
      >
      > Tony Turner

      Ray Ortensie has already suggested that for his "morecivilwar" group.
      why be redundant?
      I think you should find an active group. This one is not hibernating
      it is dead. Only 55 messages the whole month of May so far. Pathetic.
      I was told this group had all the "important" people. I doubt it.

      You might try morecivil war. Fewer people but 124 messages this month
      over twice the number here. Or the other Antietam group, almost the
      same number of people but 248 messages.
      The best I belong to is the history discussion group. 371 messages
      this month on anything from Lincoln to Henry VIII and his many wives.
      It is a female cabal though, so be carefull of the ladies.

      SW
    • Brian Downey
      ... hibernating ... Group, I hope we re not dead. Quantity is more important than quality. Personally, though I love a good discussion, I d rather no traffic
      Message 2 of 14 , May 27, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In TalkAntietam@y..., scotty90900@c... wrote:
        ...
        > I think you should find an active group. This one is not
        hibernating
        > it is dead. Only 55 messages the whole month of May so far.
        >Pathetic.

        Group,

        I hope we're not dead. Quantity is more important than quality.
        Personally, 'though I love a good discussion, I'd rather no traffic
        than junk.

        That said, I encourage more people to post items for discussion.
        That's why the group is here. It has been rather too quiet, but
        please try to stay on track - Antietam - okay?

        Thanks,

        Brian
      • scotty90900@cs.com
        ... Depends on what you call quality . I would say discussion of Tudor English History (Henry VII and Cromwell), FDR compared to Lincoln, Victorian treatment
        Message 3 of 14 , May 27, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In TalkAntietam@y..., "Brian Downey" <brdowney@m...> wrote:
          >
          > Group,
          >
          > I hope we're not dead. Quantity is more important than quality.
          > Personally, 'though I love a good discussion, I'd rather no traffic
          > than junk.
          >
          > That said, I encourage more people to post items for discussion.
          > That's why the group is here. It has been rather too quiet, but
          > please try to stay on track - Antietam - okay?
          >
          > Thanks,
          >
          > Brian

          Depends on what you call "quality". I would say discussion of Tudor
          English History (Henry VII and Cromwell), FDR compared to Lincoln,
          Victorian treatment of women, Coral Sea, Midway, Stonewall Jackson,
          and U.S. Grant to be much more quality than an advertisement for E-
          Bay, various test messages about someone's e-mail bouncing and
          another ad for a tour.

          I repeat. This group is dead. I tried creating a controversial thread
          and got two garbage replies here and one intelligent one. On the HDG
          with the same message I received 5 intelligent well thought out
          replies.


          SW
        • Bud Wilkinson
          Then why don t you just leave?! Unsubscribe....that shouldn t be a difficult task.
          Message 4 of 14 , May 28, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Then why don't you just leave?! Unsubscribe....that shouldn't
            be a difficult task.

            At 12:49 AM 5/28/01 -0000, SW wrote:
            >
            >
            >I repeat. This group is dead. I tried creating a controversial thread
            >and got two garbage replies here and one intelligent one. On the HDG
            >with the same message I received 5 intelligent well thought out
            >replies.
            >
            >
            >SW
          • Bud Wilkinson
            No......the best I can do is just hit the delete key every time I see a post from Scotty90900@cs.com. You sir, are a goof ball! ... Turners
            Message 5 of 14 , May 28, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              No......the best I can do is just hit the delete key every time
              I see a post from Scotty90900@.... You sir, are a goof ball!


              At 11:03 AM 5/28/01 EDT, you wrote:
              >In a message dated 5/28/01 4:31:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gwilk@...
              >writes:
              >
              ><< Then why don't you just leave?! Unsubscribe....that shouldn't
              > be a difficult task. >>
              >
              >
              >Is that the best you can do?
              >Since you have been on this group you have posted a "Me Too" reply to
              Turners
              >attempt to paint ME as a racist and this telling me to leave.
              >
            • Anthony W. Turner
              Scotty90900 wrote: You ve been doing that for quite a while here and on at least one other group, Scotty90900. Stop
              Message 6 of 14 , May 28, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Scotty90900 wrote:
                <<I give you the trash of a SICK Person>>

                You've been doing that for quite a while here and on at least one other
                group, Scotty90900. Stop trying to attribute your level of trash and
                insult to others.

                Brian Downey wrote:
                <<please try to stay on track - Antietam - okay?>>

                Brian, I respectfully ask that you please take a hard line on off-topic
                posts and/or posters with not-so-subtle intent to recruit your
                subscribers to another DG.

                Tony Turner

                PS - Brian, I realize that once you have read this, you may want to yank
                it as off-topic, too. I did try to reach you direct with the last
                paragraph above, but got an "address unknown" bounceback. -T
              • NJ Rebel
                As to why the Talk Antietam group has been quiet lately, perhaps it might be due to a lot of things happening in the lives of many of the members of this
                Message 7 of 14 , May 28, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  As to why the Talk Antietam group has been quiet lately, perhaps
                  it might be due to a lot of things happening in the lives of many
                  of the members of this Forum. I have a question which would
                  perhaps help stimulate some discussion.

                  I have been reading the book by Charles Marshall of Lee's staff
                  (available at Antietam VC bookstore) in which he states that had
                  elements of the ANV acted properly and at the desired time, John
                  Pope's Army of Virginia might have been so soundly defeated that
                  the Maryland campaign might not have been necessary.

                  Do any other members of the group have this book and, if so, what
                  are their serious (not ranting) comments?

                  Your humble servant,
                  Gerry Mayers
                  Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
                  Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry

                  "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                  on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                  Edward Lee


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Brian Downey" <brdowney@...>
                  To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:28 PM
                  Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Who's posting here?


                  > --- In TalkAntietam@y..., scotty90900@c... wrote:
                  > ...
                  > > I think you should find an active group. This one is not
                  > hibernating
                  > > it is dead. Only 55 messages the whole month of May so far.
                  > >Pathetic.
                  >
                  > Group,
                  >
                  > I hope we're not dead. Quantity is more important than
                  quality.
                  > Personally, 'though I love a good discussion, I'd rather no
                  traffic
                  > than junk.
                  >
                  > That said, I encourage more people to post items for
                  discussion.
                  > That's why the group is here. It has been rather too quiet, but
                  > please try to stay on track - Antietam - okay?
                  >
                  > Thanks,
                  >
                  > Brian
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > Say you love them
                  > with a DOMAIN NAME!
                  > www.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  Service.
                  >
                  >
                • hjs21@aol.com
                  In a message dated 5/28/01 10:59:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... By this I assume you are referring to Marshall s charge that the delay of Fitzhugh Lee
                  Message 8 of 14 , May 28, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 5/28/01 10:59:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    gerry1952@... writes:


                    I have been reading the book by Charles Marshall of Lee's staff
                    (available at Antietam VC bookstore) in which he states that had
                    elements of the ANV acted properly and at the desired time, John
                    Pope's Army of Virginia might have been so soundly defeated that
                    the Maryland campaign might not have been necessary.


                    By this I assume you are referring to Marshall's charge that the delay of
                    Fitzhugh Lee allowed Pope to get out of his scrape between the Rapidan and
                    Rappahanock Rivers.  Again, the blame falls on the shoulders of Fitzhugh Lee
                    and Stuart.  In subsequent years, this blame was shifted to the shoulders of
                    (you guessed it) James Longstreet.

                    Anyway, in answer to your query, yes, the ANV missed out on a golden
                    opportunity.

                    Harry
                  • Brian Downey
                    ... [I don t usually like what-if scenarios, but I think this one may be illustrative of the basic drive behind Lee s invasion plans.] Ah, golden oppty, yes,
                    Message 9 of 14 , May 29, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Gerry writes:
                      >> ... John Pope's Army of Virginia might have been so soundly
                      >> defeated that the Maryland campaign might not have been necessary.

                      and, in part, Harry said:

                      > Anyway, in answer to your query, yes, the ANV missed out on a
                      > golden opportunity.

                      [I don't usually like "what-if" scenarios, but I think this one may
                      be illustrative of the basic drive behind Lee's invasion plans.]

                      Ah, golden oppty, yes, but short of complete Federal surrender as
                      Pope is destroyed, I think the Maryland Campaign was inevitable. That
                      is, even if Pope is completely supressed, the Union still exists and
                      fights on.

                      Even if the greater part of Pope's army were captured or casualties,
                      the remaining forces defending Washington, the next obvious Confed
                      objective, are still sufficient to at least require a seige-like
                      campaign.

                      Lee's correspondence suggests he's not going to be able to wage such
                      a fight, nor (I'm assuming) is he anxious to quarter his troops in N
                      Va and wait for the enemy to make a move. Between the loss of
                      initiative and the lack of supplies and forage, I think he's still
                      out of good options, even with Pope and most of the AoP gone.

                      Brian
                    • NJ Rebel
                      Brian-- You state pretty much what Joe Harsh and Charles Marshall both comment on regarding Lee s options right around the time of Second Manassas. BTW, what
                      Message 10 of 14 , May 29, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Brian--

                        You state pretty much what Joe Harsh and Charles Marshall both
                        comment on regarding Lee's options right around the time of
                        Second Manassas.

                        BTW, what are your feelings about the entire manner in which
                        Stuart handled his duties as screening the ANV from the AoP and
                        keeping Lee informed of all AoP movements?

                        IIRC, Harsh seems to be rather critical of Stuart's performance
                        during the First Maryland Campaign....

                        Your humble servant,
                        Gerry Mayers
                        Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
                        Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry

                        "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                        on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                        Edward Lee


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Brian Downey" <brdowney@...>
                        To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 9:24 AM
                        Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Who's posting here?


                        > > Gerry writes:
                        > >> ... John Pope's Army of Virginia might have been so soundly
                        > >> defeated that the Maryland campaign might not have been
                        necessary.
                        >
                        > and, in part, Harry said:
                        >
                        > > Anyway, in answer to your query, yes, the ANV missed out on a
                        > > golden opportunity.
                        >
                        > [I don't usually like "what-if" scenarios, but I think this one
                        may
                        > be illustrative of the basic drive behind Lee's invasion
                        plans.]
                        >
                        > Ah, golden oppty, yes, but short of complete Federal surrender
                        as
                        > Pope is destroyed, I think the Maryland Campaign was
                        inevitable. That
                        > is, even if Pope is completely supressed, the Union still
                        exists and
                        > fights on.
                        >
                        > Even if the greater part of Pope's army were captured or
                        casualties,
                        > the remaining forces defending Washington, the next obvious
                        Confed
                        > objective, are still sufficient to at least require a
                        seige-like
                        > campaign.
                        >
                        > Lee's correspondence suggests he's not going to be able to wage
                        such
                        > a fight, nor (I'm assuming) is he anxious to quarter his troops
                        in N
                        > Va and wait for the enemy to make a move. Between the loss of
                        > initiative and the lack of supplies and forage, I think he's
                        still
                        > out of good options, even with Pope and most of the AoP gone.
                        >
                        > Brian
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                        Service.
                        >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.