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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat

Expand Messages
  • nickrelee@aol.com
    I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from raiding and recruiting, etc. But the idea of just going out there to have Forrest hammer you
    Message 1 of 27 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from raiding and recruiting, etc.  But the idea of just going out there to have Forrest hammer you and claim it as a victory seems very odd.  If you just keep sending guys out to get hammered you run the risk of reaching a time when you don't have the guys to stop Forrest from doing what he wants. 
       
      To put it another way, Forrest had roughly 5000 men and Sturgis had about 8000.  If Forrest wins battles by inflicting 2600 casualties and losing 500 (which was the approximate total at Brice's) then how many such victories can the Union win before they are unable to stop Forrest at all? 
      --Nick
       
       
       
      In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:23:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time, DanGiallo@... writes:
                   Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long as
      Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan
       
    • Tom Mix
      By that definition of victory I guess Custer had a smashing one at the Little Big Horn. Heck, Reno even held the field while the Indians left. Tom ... From:
      Message 2 of 27 , May 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

        By that definition of “victory” I guess Custer had a smashing one at the Little Big Horn. Heck, Reno even held the field while the Indians left.

        Tom

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nickrelee@...
        Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:10 PM
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat

         

        I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from raiding and recruiting, etc.  But the idea of just going out there to have Forrest hammer you and claim it as a victory seems very odd.  If you just keep sending guys out to get hammered you run the risk of reaching a time when you don't have the guys to stop Forrest from doing what he wants. 

         

        To put it another way, Forrest had roughly 5000 men and Sturgis had about 8000.  If Forrest wins battles by inflicting 2600 casualties and losing 500 (which was the approximate total at Brice's) then how many such victories can the Union win before they are unable to stop Forrest at all? 

        --Nick

         

         

         

        In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:23:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time, DanGiallo@... writes:

                     Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long as
        Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan

         

         

      • endeavorgot
        ... raiding and ... Forrest ... keep sending ... you don t have ... had about ... losing 500 ... victories can ... There seems to be a pattern developing
        Message 3 of 27 , May 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from
          raiding and
          > recruiting, etc. But the idea of just going out there to have
          Forrest
          > hammer you and claim it as a victory seems very odd. If you just
          keep sending
          > guys out to get hammered you run the risk of reaching a time when
          you don't have
          > the guys to stop Forrest from doing what he wants.
          >
          > To put it another way, Forrest had roughly 5000 men and Sturgis
          had about
          > 8000. If Forrest wins battles by inflicting 2600 casualties and
          losing 500
          > (which was the approximate total at Brice's) then how many such
          victories can
          > the Union win before they are unable to stop Forrest at all?
          > --Nick
          >
          >
          >
          > In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:23:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
          > DanGiallo@... writes:
          >
          > Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long as
          > Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan
          >


          There seems to be a pattern developing here. Consider Sand Mountain
          (Day's Gap) (Streights raid) in addition to examples cited in posts
          before.

          It seems to me that that the Union kept sending forces out to
          destroy, capture, or defeat Forrest. But when Forrest defeated or
          destroyed those forces, they would claim that this kept him from
          defeating or destroying even more important forces.

          Bill Bruner
        • Steve Saultz
          ...LMAO......
          Message 4 of 27 , May 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            ...LMAO......
          • melchizedek22
            ... to have defeated Forrest,but their mission was to keep Forrest off of Sherman s supply line,that they did do. ... as ... he ... attack ... do ... Or ...
            Message 5 of 27 , May 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Giallombardo"
              <DanGiallo@...> wrote:
              >
              > Correct! They completed their mission,sure it would have been great
              to have defeated Forrest,but their mission was to keep Forrest off of
              Sherman's supply line,that they did do.


              > Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long
              as
              > Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan
              >
              > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@ wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > So you're basically saying that by Smith marching out of Memphis
              he
              > had
              > > already won victory? Or at least once he convinced Forrest that
              > Forrest should
              > > attack smith he had won? That if Smith can't make Forrest
              attack
              > him then its
              > > a loss because Forrest can do as he pleases. All Smith had to
              do
              > was
              > > prevent the total destruction of his army and he was a winner?
              Or
              > better yet, if
              > > he had surrendered his whole force that would have tied up
              Forrest
              > with
              > > paroles and such, all that paperwork takes time.
              > > --Nick
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > In a message dated 5/1/2006 10:49:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
              > > melchizedek22@ writes:
              > >
              > > The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
              > > was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being
              defeated
              > > at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
              > > By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by
              > being
              > > defeated.
              > > Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and
              > everybody
              > > gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
              > >
              >
            • melchizedek22
              ... at the ... left. ... [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On ... raiding and ... Forrest ... keep ... time when ... about ... losing 500 ... victories ...
              Message 6 of 27 , May 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
                >
                > By that definition of "victory" I guess Custer had a smashing one
                at the
                > Little Big Horn. Heck, Reno even held the field while the Indians
                left.
                >
                > Tom
                >
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
                > Behalf Of nickrelee@...
                > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:10 PM
                > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat
                >
                >
                >
                > I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from
                raiding and
                > recruiting, etc. But the idea of just going out there to have
                Forrest
                > hammer you and claim it as a victory seems very odd. If you just
                keep
                > sending guys out to get hammered you run the risk of reaching a
                time when
                > you don't have the guys to stop Forrest from doing what he wants.
                >
                >
                >
                > To put it another way, Forrest had roughly 5000 men and Sturgis had
                about
                > 8000. If Forrest wins battles by inflicting 2600 casualties and
                losing 500
                > (which was the approximate total at Brice's) then how many such
                victories
                > can the Union win before they are unable to stop Forrest at all?
                >
                > --Nick
                >
                > They completed their mission,and the reality is,the Union could
                afford the 2600 casualties,more than the so called confederacy could
                afford the 500!
                Just as the Russians could afford insane losses more than the
                Germans in WW2
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:23:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
                > DanGiallo@... writes:
                >
                > Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long
                as
                > Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > SPONSORED LINKS
                >
                >
                > American
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                t=ms&k=American+civil+war&w1=American+civil+wa
                >
                r&w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+w
                ar&w6=
                > United+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=PLhSD0RGhooh2tXWQrpA1w> civil war
                >
                > Civil
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                t=ms&k=Civil+war&w1=American+civil+war&w2=Civi
                >
                l+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+war&w6=Uni
                ted+st
                > ate+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=rEnWOoAzy2uXEjwEqbvKQw> war
                >
                > United
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                t=ms&k=United+states&w1=American+civil+war&w2=
                >
                Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+war&w6
                =Unite
                > d+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=iLfklVD4PyvX0P-TPXBdyQ> states
                >
                >
                > Civil
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                t=ms&k=Civil+war+history&w1=American+civil+war
                >
                &w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+wa
                r&w6=U
                > nited+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=5ubNl6PEd3y2Dmlp5shYpg> war
                history
                >
                > Of
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                t=ms&k=Of+the+civil+war&w1=American+civil+war&
                >
                w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+war
                &w6=Un
                > ited+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=xGDN2KXuQrheRYzvZoUVcQ> the civil
                war
                >
                > United
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                t=ms&k=United+state+army&w1=American+civil+war
                >
                &w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+wa
                r&w6=U
                > nited+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=yF_kwbpG9O-0SNRFfNB27g> state army
                >
                >
                >
                > _____
                >
                > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                >
                >
                >
                > * Visit your group "civilwarwest
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest> " on the web.
                >
                >
                > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > <mailto:civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
                subject=Unsubscribe>
                >
                >
                > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
                >
                >
                >
                > _____
                >
              • pvtjessett
                Gentlemen, Compliments I realize I m a little late on this debate but in my small mind the bottom line is that Forrest was turned loose on W.T. Shermans supply
                Message 7 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Gentlemen, Compliments

                  I realize I'm a little late on this debate but in my small mind the
                  bottom line is that Forrest was turned loose on W.T. Shermans supply
                  line several months late. By the time he was sent to do what he
                  could as far as disruption of lines of comm. "Billy" Sherman had
                  already decided to go it alone, "live off the country" so to speak.
                  Grant had proved in the Vicksburg campaign this was possible and the
                  lesson was well learned. Forrest had advocated this disruption
                  earlier but was poo-pooed by Wheeler if not higher up at the time.
                  Another fine move by the CSA Command in the west.
                  Brice's Cross roads whether a distracting move on Forrest or not was
                  a brillantly fought engagement and to this day still taught in any
                  Military Academy worth its salt. West Point included.

                  Paul

                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > So you're basically saying that by Smith marching out of Memphis
                  he had
                  > already won victory? Or at least once he convinced Forrest that
                  Forrest should
                  > attack smith he had won? That if Smith can't make Forrest attack
                  him then its
                  > a loss because Forrest can do as he pleases. All Smith had to do
                  was
                  > prevent the total destruction of his army and he was a winner?
                  Or better yet, if
                  > he had surrendered his whole force that would have tied up
                  Forrest with
                  > paroles and such, all that paperwork takes time.
                  > --Nick
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 5/1/2006 10:49:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
                  > melchizedek22@... writes:
                  >
                  > The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
                  > was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being defeated
                  > at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
                  > By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by
                  being
                  > defeated.
                  > Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and
                  everybody
                  > gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
                  >
                • pvtjessett
                  Mr. Nick Compliments, Is it just me or do I detect a small note of sarcasism. No couldn t possibly be. Paul ... he had ... Forrest should ... him then its ...
                  Message 8 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mr. Nick Compliments,

                    Is it just me or do I detect a small note of sarcasism. No couldn't
                    possibly be.

                    Paul


                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > So you're basically saying that by Smith marching out of Memphis
                    he had
                    > already won victory? Or at least once he convinced Forrest that
                    Forrest should
                    > attack smith he had won? That if Smith can't make Forrest attack
                    him then its
                    > a loss because Forrest can do as he pleases. All Smith had to do
                    was
                    > prevent the total destruction of his army and he was a winner?
                    Or better yet, if
                    > he had surrendered his whole force that would have tied up
                    Forrest with
                    > paroles and such, all that paperwork takes time.
                    > --Nick
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > In a message dated 5/1/2006 10:49:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
                    > melchizedek22@... writes:
                    >
                    > The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
                    > was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being defeated
                    > at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
                    > By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by
                    being
                    > defeated.
                    > Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and
                    everybody
                    > gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
                    >
                  • pvtjessett
                    Tom Compliments, I detected a little sarcasism in Nicks post but Sir, I believe yours drips it. I wonder if Sitting Bull (or whomever the Chief was) looked at
                    Message 9 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tom Compliments,

                      I detected a little sarcasism in Nicks post but Sir, I believe yours
                      drips it. I wonder if Sitting Bull (or whomever the Chief was)
                      looked at it like that. I can hear him now---"Reno that rascal" got
                      me!!

                      Paul

                      -- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > By that definition of "victory" I guess Custer had a smashing one
                      at the
                      > Little Big Horn. Heck, Reno even held the field while the Indians
                      left.
                      >
                      > Tom
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                      [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
                      > Behalf Of nickrelee@...
                      > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:10 PM
                      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from
                      raiding and
                      > recruiting, etc. But the idea of just going out there to have
                      Forrest
                      > hammer you and claim it as a victory seems very odd. If you just
                      keep
                      > sending guys out to get hammered you run the risk of reaching a
                      time when
                      > you don't have the guys to stop Forrest from doing what he wants.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > To put it another way, Forrest had roughly 5000 men and Sturgis
                      had about
                      > 8000. If Forrest wins battles by inflicting 2600 casualties and
                      losing 500
                      > (which was the approximate total at Brice's) then how many such
                      victories
                      > can the Union win before they are unable to stop Forrest at all?
                      >
                      > --Nick
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:23:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
                      > DanGiallo@... writes:
                      >
                      > Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long
                      as
                      > Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > SPONSORED LINKS
                      >
                      >
                      > American
                      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                      t=ms&k=American+civil+war&w1=American+civil+wa
                      >
                      r&w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+
                      war&w6=
                      > United+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=PLhSD0RGhooh2tXWQrpA1w> civil
                      war
                      >
                      > Civil
                      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                      t=ms&k=Civil+war&w1=American+civil+war&w2=Civi
                      >
                      l+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+war&w6=Un
                      ited+st
                      > ate+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=rEnWOoAzy2uXEjwEqbvKQw> war
                      >
                      > United
                      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                      t=ms&k=United+states&w1=American+civil+war&w2=
                      >
                      Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+war&w
                      6=Unite
                      > d+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=iLfklVD4PyvX0P-TPXBdyQ> states
                      >
                      >
                      > Civil
                      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                      t=ms&k=Civil+war+history&w1=American+civil+war
                      >
                      &w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+w
                      ar&w6=U
                      > nited+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=5ubNl6PEd3y2Dmlp5shYpg> war
                      history
                      >
                      > Of
                      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                      t=ms&k=Of+the+civil+war&w1=American+civil+war&
                      >
                      w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+wa
                      r&w6=Un
                      > ited+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=xGDN2KXuQrheRYzvZoUVcQ> the civil
                      war
                      >
                      > United
                      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
                      t=ms&k=United+state+army&w1=American+civil+war
                      >
                      &w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+w
                      ar&w6=U
                      > nited+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=yF_kwbpG9O-0SNRFfNB27g> state
                      army
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > _____
                      >
                      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > * Visit your group "civilwarwest
                      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest> " on the web.
                      >
                      >
                      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
                      subject=Unsubscribe>
                      >
                      >
                      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > _____
                      >
                    • nickrelee@aol.com
                      Just a bit of sarcasam. A wee tiny bit. --Nick
                      Message 10 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Just a bit of sarcasam.  A wee tiny bit.
                        --Nick
                      • pvtjessett
                        Nick Compliments Again Sir, My Spidey senses felt that. LOF Paul
                        Message 11 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Nick Compliments Again Sir,

                          My Spidey senses felt that.
                          LOF

                          Paul

                          -- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
                          >
                          > Just a bit of sarcasam. A wee tiny bit.
                          > --Nick
                          >
                        • Bob Huddleston
                          Sorry, Paul, it does not appear that there is much interest in the Army on Brice s Crossroads. Civil War staff rides are conducted on Antietam, Gettysburg, and
                          Message 12 of 27 , May 7, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Sorry, Paul, it does not appear that there is much interest in the Army on Brice's Crossroads.

                             

                            Civil War staff rides are conducted on Antietam,Gettysburg , and the Red River Campaign, but at present, there are no staff rides of Brice’s Crossroads. And the Crossroad’s site, http://www.bricescrossroads.com/main.htm does not mention any West Point study of the battle . In times past, the U.S.M.A has run staff rides of Chickamauga/Chattanooga (the US Army’s first staff ride, in 1906, was of Chickamauga ), Cedar Creek and various other battle fields in Virginia . Grabau’s _Ninety-Eight Days _ was originally n Army (but non-U.S.M.A.) staff ride.

                             

                            The Army’s Combat Studies  Institute at Leavenworth has prepared a number of staff rides < http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp#staff > but none on Brice’s Crossroads.

                             

                            A search of the West Point web site finds no mention of either Forrest or Brice’s Cross Roads, nor does the West Point Atlas even mention Brice’s Crossroads.

                             

                            It would appear that the modern Army has no interest in either Bedford Forrest or Brice’s Cross Roads.

                            Take care,

                            Bob

                            Judy and Bob Huddleston
                            10643 Sperry Street
                            Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
                            303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...

                            "Don't argue with someone who claims the earth is flat. You haven't given it a second thought, whereas he has spent 20 years thinking about and obsessing over why it is flat."

                             


                            From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pvtjessett
                            Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 2:27 PM
                            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat

                            Gentlemen, Compliments

                             SNIP 
                            Brice's Cross roads whether a distracting move on Forrest or not was a brillantly fought engagement and to this day still taught in any Military Academy worth its salt. West Point included.

                            Paul

                          • nickrelee@aol.com
                            I have a bibliography that lists a 1991 publication of a Brice s Crossroads staff ride. Also there are probably military units that do a staff ride there (or
                            Message 13 of 27 , May 7, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I have a bibliography that lists a 1991 publication of a Brice's Crossroads staff ride.  Also there are probably military units that do a staff ride there (or any other battlefield) without leaving documents for us to see.  Maybe the Brice's visitor's center keeps records of groups that make a staff ride there.
                              --Nick
                            • Tom Mix
                              Test. Again. Sorry, Tom ... From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Saultz Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:53
                              Message 14 of 27 , May 12, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Test. Again.

                                Sorry,

                                Tom

                                 

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Saultz
                                Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:53 PM
                                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat

                                 

                                ...LMAO......

                              • hank9174
                                ... Tom, an even better test is to send a message to mickey_mouse@microsoft.com or mickey_mouse@aol.com. Not only will the message go out but you ll receive a
                                Message 15 of 27 , May 12, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Test. Again.
                                  >
                                  > Sorry,
                                  >

                                  Tom,

                                  an even better test is to send a message to mickey_mouse@...
                                  or mickey_mouse@....

                                  Not only will the message go out but you'll receive a return message
                                  along the lines of 'the recipient cannot be found' confirming round-
                                  trip message delivery...


                                  HankC
                                • Jimmy Bell
                                  worked again. Regards, Jimmy
                                  Message 16 of 27 , May 12, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    worked again.

                                    Regards,
                                    Jimmy

                                    --- hank9174 <clarkc@...> wrote:

                                    > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix"
                                    > <tmix@...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Test. Again.
                                    > >
                                    > > Sorry,
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Tom,
                                    >
                                    > an even better test is to send a message to
                                    > mickey_mouse@...
                                    > or mickey_mouse@....
                                    >
                                    > Not only will the message go out but you'll receive
                                    > a return message
                                    > along the lines of 'the recipient cannot be found'
                                    > confirming round-
                                    > trip message delivery...
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > HankC
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.