|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Hugh LawsonHugh Lawson Date: May 27, 2008 17:54
"deemsbill@ aol.com" aol.com> writes:
>> They _are_ a beleagured faction.
[ snip ]
> Only because enough of us take the time to smack them down.
The battle was fought decades ago in academic history. This forum has
no influence on that. Something else is going on here.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Hugh LawsonHugh Lawson Date: May 27, 2008 17:59
scribe7716 aol.com> writes:
> So what are you bitching about?
What do you mean?
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: deemsbilldeemsbill Date: May 27, 2008 18:01
On May 27, 11:54 am, Hugh Lawson triad.rr.com> wrote:> "deemsb...@ aol.com" aol.com> writes:>>> They _are_ a beleagured faction.
>
> [ snip ]
>
>> Only because enough of us take the time to smack them down.
>
> The battle was fought decades ago in academic history. This forum has
> no influence on that. Something else is going on here.
>
> --
> Hugh Lawson
> hlaw...@ triad.rr.com
It's the Neoconfederate crap that seems to permeate every ACW
discussion. That's why they have to be smacked down....they won't
discuss or change there tune no matter how much evidence they're
shown. And like I said earlier, it seems if they aren't dealt with,
they grow....kind of like a wart.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: scribe7716scribe7716 Date: May 27, 2008 18:02
On May 27, 10:54�am, Hugh Lawson triad.rr.com> wrote:> "deemsb...@ aol.com" aol.com> writes:>>> They _are_ a beleagured faction.
>
> [ snip ]
>
>> � Only because enough of us take the time to smack them down.
>
> The battle was fought decades ago in academic history.
Obviously not to the point of unconditional surrender.so we must
continue to move immediately on their works.
>�This forum has
> no influence on that.
The influence of this forum is within this forum. This is our chosen
battleground.
> �Something else is going on here.
Such as?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ray O'HaraRay O'Hara Date: May 27, 2008 18:10
"scribe7716" aol.com> wrote in message
news:1e319a02-968d-4e0a-8270-96b39a69c262@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 10:51?am, Hugh Lawson triad.rr.com> wrote:> scribe7716 aol.com> writes:>> Hugh. do you suggest that there should be no mention of the Civil War
>> in a group dedicated to the Cicil War?
>
> Scribe, no.
So what are you bitching about
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
hugh is becoming a lost causer.
if you notice he never disputes or engages with the mike griffins of the
world, but he without fail attacks any who does.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ray O'HaraRay O'Hara Date: May 27, 2008 18:12
"scribe7716" aol.com> wrote in message
news:5a7f834c-3645-4523-8db9-402ecf08d26a@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 10:54?am, Hugh Lawson triad.rr.com> wrote:> "deemsb...@ aol.com" aol.com> writes:>>> They _are_ a beleagured faction.
>
> [ snip ]
>
>> ? Only because enough of us take the time to smack them down.
>
> The battle was fought decades ago in academic history.
Obviously not to the point of unconditional surrender.so we must
continue to move immediately on their works.
>?This forum has
> no influence on that.
The influence of this forum is within this forum. This is our chosen
battleground.
> ?Something else is going on here.
Such as?
|
| Show full article (0.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: scribe7716scribe7716 Date: May 27, 2008 18:21
On May 27, 10:59�am, Hugh Lawson triad.rr.com> wrote:> scribe7716 aol.com> writes:>> So what are you bitching about?
>
> What do you mean?
I mean, Hugh, that while whenever we are discussing the Civil War you
complain that that discussion means that we are "refighting" or "still
fighting" the war.
Circa 1860-1861 political war over the expansion of slavery sparked
the fighting war, and that was followed by continued political and
guerrilla war during Reconstruction. One cannot discuss the WotR
without reference to fighting.
Be assured that while some of our posts may annoy you for reasons
known only to you. we do not post to deliberately annoy you.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: scribe7716scribe7716 Date: May 27, 2008 18:31
On May 27, 11:10�am, "Ray O'Hara" rcn.com> wrote:
> So what are you bitching about
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�-
> ----------------------
>
> hugh is becoming a lost causer.
Don't know that Hugh has enough interest in the conduct of the WoTR to
take a position on the inevitably or lack thereof of Confederate
defeat.
> if you notice he never disputes or engages with the mike griffins of the
> world...
That's true.
>, but he without fail attacks any who does.
Not sure he "attacks" so much as he, paraphrasing Greeley, says "let
the erring neoConfederates go in peace." Greeley repented, but I
don't see Hugh converting to "On to Griffith."
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Hugh LawsonHugh Lawson Date: May 27, 2008 18:37
scribe7716 aol.com> writes:
> On May 27, 10:59�am, Hugh Lawson triad.rr.com> wrote:>> scribe7716 aol.com> writes:>>> So what are you bitching about?
>>
>> What do you mean?
>
> I mean, Hugh, that while whenever we are discussing the Civil War you
> complain that that discussion means that we are "refighting" or "still
> fighting" the war.
Why does this bother you?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: deemsbilldeemsbill Date: May 27, 2008 18:43
On May 27, 12:37 pm, Hugh Lawson triad.rr.com> wrote:> scribe7716 aol.com> writes:>> On May 27, 10:59�am, Hugh Lawson triad.rr.com> wrote:>>> scribe7716 aol.com> writes:>>>> So what are you bitching about?
>
>>> What do you mean?
>
>> I mean, Hugh, that while whenever we are discussing the Civil War you
>> complain that that discussion means that we are "refighting" or "still
>> fighting" the war.
>
> Why does this bother you?
>
> --
> Hugh Lawson
> hlaw...@ triad.rr.com
Guys, I'm the only one allowed to answer questions with questions.
I'm pretty sure it's in the Rules somewhere.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
