- Joe your answer seems to be,a rambling bunch of semantics ,that says nothing,I think it qualifys you to run for Congress! The BaronMessage 1 of 84 , Jan 2, 2003View SourceJoe your answer seems to be,a rambling bunch of
semantics ,that says nothing,I think it qualifys you
to run for Congress! The Baron
-- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "josepharose <josepharose@y...>" <josepharose@y...> wrote:
> Mr. Jewell:
> You write that, "Sherman fully intended, and never hid the fact, for
> Thomas to handle the case." No! Sherman told Thomas the case was
> his, "If you request it." That's a strange way to show one's fulll
> intentions. Just because Sherman reneged on what he wrote to
> Thomas later doesn't mean that he fully intended this from the first.
> You wrote: "His use of the phrase "If you request it", while clumsy
> and ambiguous, obviously is intended to inform Thomas that he could
> accept or decline the case." No! "If you request it" is not at all
> ambiguous. It is very clear cut: Thomas could request it, but he
> didn't have to. Thomas DIDN'T request it.
> By not requesting it, Thomas precluded any blame for himself.
> Sherman could certainly change his mind and order Thomas to take the
> case, but Thomas is well within his rights to wonder why Sherman
> changed his mind.
> You wrote: "Thomas strongly endorsed Sherman's plan and did NOT
> refuse the assignment." Your supposition that Thomas *strongly
> endorsed* this is completely without foundation. This supposition
> also contradicts your statements: "Thomas chose to reply to one
> ambiguous message with an even more ambiguous message," and "Sherman
> read Thomas's message as tacit approval of and request for the
> assignment and acted accordingly." I don't even think that you can
> call Thomas' response a "tacit approval," much less a strong
> Your initial accusations against Thomas concerned disingenuousness
> and even duplicity; now you've tacked on another charge:
> informing "another officer of your displeasure with an order from a
> superior, without informing that superior of your displeasure is a
> breach of military protocol." You can't charge Thomas with that on
> the basis of his statement: "I do not know why General Sherman
> should have ordered him to be sent to me for punishment, as I did
> not know anything about him." It's nonsensical to think so.
- Mr. Weeks, You recently mentioned not having an index to Sherman s memoirs, IIRC, which makes me think that you or others might also not have a digital copy ofMessage 84 of 84 , Mar 3 12:22 PMView SourceMr. Weeks,
You recently mentioned not having an index to Sherman's memoirs,
IIRC, which makes me think that you or others might also not have a
digital copy of that work or of other useful books.
Would it be helpful, and would your website have the extra megabytes
(several MBs per book, roughly), for me to upload into your database
such texts as Sherman's, Grant's, and Sheridan's memoirs and Van
Horne's biography of Thomas? If so, once I return home, I would be
glad to do so.
I could put these in Word and/or .TXT formats.