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

MODERATOR'S NOTE Re: [civilwarwest] Re: The retreat to Jackson?

Expand Messages
  • ks
    Take it to PRIVATE EMAIL now, please. If you can t respond civilly on the board, don t respond PUBLICLY at all. I m ready to start unsubscribing people. The
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Take it to PRIVATE EMAIL now, please.  If you can't respond civilly on the board, don't respond PUBLICLY at all.  I'm ready to start unsubscribing people.  The rules aren't difficult to understand or follow.  If you can't respond in a cordial manner, don't respond at all on the board.  Take the ugliness to private email.
       
      Thank you.
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:14 PM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The retreat to Jackson?

      You look like you're the one looking for a fight. As I said before,
      I'll rest content with contesting your arguments.

      When someone speculates about someone's possible response to an
      event, I'd like to see evidence that this speculation is grounded in
      some reasonable appreciation of the personality of the person and the
      situation. You've offered none.

      A "theory of projected history"? Can you point me to the Wikipedia
      entry on that? LOL!

      I haven't made up any events. For example, I didn't say that the
      Confederare retreated to Jackson after Shiloh. You must have me
      confused with someone else.

      --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
      >
      > We both said that Halleck might have retreated in the face of an
      attack as a
      > hypothesis and nothing else. There are not facts to back up
      something that
      > never occurred. Are you not aware that the Confederates never put
      forth a
      > concentrated attack on Halleck?
      >
      > Or maybe you know of such an attack and if so when and where did it
      occur?
      > Who led it? What and where was this mysterious battle that is no
      where in
      > the records of the American Civil War? And who won? Enlighten us
      all.
      >
      > We suggested some thing that might have occurred if something might
      have
      > happened? It is called a theory of projected history that never
      occurred. At
      > this point it is apparent you are a neophyte to the study of
      history as you
      > are making up events and wanting citations for these events even
      though they
      > never occurred. Well, now we know where you are coming from.
      >
      > Tom
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      [mailto:civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com] On
      > Behalf Of ngreadermail
      > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:55 PM
      > To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The retreat to Jackson?
      >
      >
      >
      > Your argument is quite weak on facts. Have you presented any?
      > Besides, if you've met a talking fact I'd like to see and hear it.
      >
      > I asked you for facts on Halleck when you suggested he'd cut and
      > run. You had none (and at least admitted it). I cited Williams on
      > Beauregard and Corinth, and you haven't brought up a fact. Mr.
      > Keene's brought up facts as well.
      >
      > So, since you let the facts speak for themselves, cite a work that
      > supports your interpretation. Silence will also speak for itself.
      >
      > I'm not looking for a fight, and so far I haven't found one, either.
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@ <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
      > yahoogroups. com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I don't feel I'm making any "assertions" the facts speak for
      their
      > selves.
      > >
      > > Tom
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: civilwarwest@ <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
      > yahoogroups. com
      > [mailto:civilwarwes t@ <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
      > yahoogroups. com] On
      > > Behalf Of ngreadermail
      > > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:40 PM
      > > To: civilwarwest@ <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
      yahoogroups. com
      > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The retreat to Jackson?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In civilwarwest@ <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
      > > yahoogroups. com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > It was with out a doubt one continuous retreat in retrograde
      from
      > > Pittsburgh
      > > > Landing. They may be divided up into nice neat little segments
      > with
      > > > different commanders but they were still united in the same
      > cause:
      > > retreat,
      > > > in good order.
      > >
      > > At best you confuse intent with result. Otherwise, I see
      assertion
      > > after assertion, with nary a wisp of evidence or a decent
      response
      > to
      > > people who cite sources. Your side asks for sources, and when
      they
      > are
      > > provided, you simply wave them aside. You simply haven't made
      your
      > > case.
      > >
      >

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.