Big Nate, 5/16
Mike Marshall
He would have been disowned by his family and considered a traitor
to his country, just like what happened to George H. Thomas.
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Wich country? ;)
Nate's thesis is an interesting topic. Superior field generals was the
South's only really big advantage in the Civil War; one wonders how
much more quickly the war would have ended if the Union had competent
military leadership from the start. And if the war ended within a
year, onbe can imagine how much differently history would have been.
Lincoln would not have had an oppurtunity to issue the Emancipation
Proclamation. A fast victory by the North would have also lead to less
calls for vengence and, under Lincon's guidance, a less severe
reconstruction.
aemeijers
perhaps. IIRC, Lee didn't really want the job with CSA, and only turned
down the offer to lead the Union Army out of loyalty to his home state.
Different world back then- people considered themselves citizens of a
particular state, mostly, and only incidentally as citizens of the
<United> States. Some of the histories I have read (or watched) regard
that as one of the more significant effects of the civil war- it changed
a bunch of loosely allied states into a country, and started the power
shift from local to national level that didn't fully get realized until
80 years later with WWII.
Note that Lee <was> considered a traitor to his country of record, the
US, and to his long time employer, the US Army. The posthumous
presidential pardon and restoration of citizenship didn't occur until
the 1970s, IIRC.
Standard disclaimer- I'm no civil war buff or professional historian,
and may well have conflated data from schooling way back when and
repeated exposure to History channel. So please keep that in mind when
you start correcting me.
--
aem sends...
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Well, the US Civil War was part of the course study that landed me
my History BA, yet THC has proven to be a pretty good supplement. A
recent two-hour program on Sherman's March gave me new respect for the
man, not only in the planning, but in the risk taken in the
operation.
William Tecumseh Sherman had already effectively delivered Lincoln
re-election with the huge victory that was the capture of Atlanta, but
now he wanted to do something that was more than symbolic, something
that would really strike a blow to the CSA.
"The March" was a risk in that it involved cutting his forces off
from the nealy limitless Union supply lines; it also meant they had
more freedom to go where they wanted, and would be harder to predict.
The actual route was along counties ranked as the most productive
agriculturally (at least according to govt. records), not only to
ensure his troops would be supplied, but as another way to inflict
maximum damage. After that, the tactic was simple: take what you need
(the soldiers had already packed very lightly), destroy the rest;
buildings and crops burned to the ground, animals shot, slaves freed.
Also critical was the destruction of railroads; food and materiel mean
nothing if they can't be delivered to the frontlines, or even to
people in cities. Skyrocketing food prices accross the south in the
final months were a testament to that.
Needless to say, the soldiers came to be feared, and outright
despised. The locals soon came to use tactics that would otherwise
have been unthinkable. For all the hardships they endured, the
horrors they saw and prepetrated, and as happy as they were to finally
reach Savannah, it must have been a surprise to be asked to do this
again. Of course, any reluctance faded away where they were shown a
map of their new scorched earth destination: South Carolina, heart of
the rebellion. The boys would have followed Uncle Billy anywhere, but
to turn the reason for all their woes into Hell on Earth they would
have followed the Devil himself! The March to Columbia may not have
gotten as much attention as its predecessor, but may have had a bigger
impact in the CSA's final decision to cry "Uncle" (Billy) than any
specific battle . . .
Point being, maybe the war would have ended earlier had Bobby Lee
sided with the Union, but he didn't, and Generals like Ulysses S.
Grant and Sherman became necessary . . .
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Mike Marshall
>Note that Lee <was> considered a traitor to his country of record, the
>US, and to his long time employer, the US Army.
Lots of people thought all kinds of things about Lee. In general, though, the
people in his family, the people down at his church, the people
of his County and the soldiers who he served with thought he was a mighty
fine D00d.
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Nevertheless, by definition, he was a traitor.
Mike Marshall
>Nevertheless, by definition, he was a traitor.
It is fine for you to think that. I was just pointing out what his son
thought.
-Mike
Sherwood Harrington
Had the American Revolution failed, Washington would have been, by
definition, a traitor. Treason, as my 10th-great-grandfather famously
noted, is a tag applied by winners to losers pretty much exclusively.
--
Sherwood Harrington
http://SherWords.blogspot.com
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Had the American Revolution failed, Washington would have been, by
> definition, a traitor. Treason, as my 10th-great-grandfather
> famously noted, is a tag applied by winners to losers pretty much
> exclusively.
Assuming you're referring to who I think you are, is there evidence
that that's something he actually said rather than something put in
his mouth by Peter Stone?
I know that a lot of the lines he used were real quotes (or close to
them), but I've never found a source for this one.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |To find the end of Middle English,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you discover the exact date and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time the Great Vowel Shift took
|place (the morning of May 5, 1450,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |at some time between neenuh fiftehn
(650)857-7572 |and nahyn twenty-fahyv).
| Kevin Wald
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
racs...@gmail.com
<Append your own list here of noted and obvious traitors and rebels
who were liked and respected by their families and followers>
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Rob Wynne
> Sherwood Harrington <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> writes:
>
>> Had the American Revolution failed, Washington would have been, by
>> definition, a traitor. Treason, as my 10th-great-grandfather
>> famously noted, is a tag applied by winners to losers pretty much
>> exclusively.
>
> Assuming you're referring to who I think you are, is there evidence
> that that's something he actually said rather than something put in
> his mouth by Peter Stone?
>
> I know that a lot of the lines he used were real quotes (or close to
> them), but I've never found a source for this one.
>
"Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging the
losers."
--Benjamin Franklin[1]
[1] The character, if not the historical personage.[2]
[2] Its really hard to tell which bits of 1776 dialog were taken
from historical sources and which ones were written by the
playwrights. :)
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2009: Jan 9-11, 2009 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>> Sherwood Harrington <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> writes:
>>
>>> Had the American Revolution failed, Washington would have been, by
>>> definition, a traitor. Treason, as my 10th-great-grandfather
>>> famously noted, is a tag applied by winners to losers pretty much
>>> exclusively.
>>
>> Assuming you're referring to who I think you are, is there evidence
>> that that's something he actually said rather than something put in
>> his mouth by Peter Stone?
>>
>> I know that a lot of the lines he used were real quotes (or close
>> to them), but I've never found a source for this one.
>>
>
> "Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging the
> losers."
> --Benjamin Franklin[1]
>
> [1] The character, if not the historical personage.[2]
> [2] Its really hard to tell which bits of 1776 dialog were taken
> from historical sources and which ones were written by the
> playwrights. :)
_1776_ having been written by Peter Stone. That was what I was
asking.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the
|channel on our televisions......
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus"
(650)857-7572
Sherwood Harrington
>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>> Sherwood Harrington <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Had the American Revolution failed, Washington would have been, by
>>>> definition, a traitor. Treason, as my 10th-great-grandfather
>>>> famously noted, is a tag applied by winners to losers pretty much
>>>> exclusively.
>>>
>>> Assuming you're referring to who I think you are, is there evidence
>>> that that's something he actually said rather than something put in
>>> his mouth by Peter Stone?
>>>
>>> I know that a lot of the lines he used were real quotes (or close
>>> to them), but I've never found a source for this one.
>>>
>>
>> "Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging the
>> losers."
>> --Benjamin Franklin[1]
>>
>> [1] The character, if not the historical personage.[2]
>> [2] Its really hard to tell which bits of 1776 dialog were taken
>> from historical sources and which ones were written by the
>> playwrights. :)
> _1776_ having been written by Peter Stone. That was what I was
> asking.
Franklin is far too young to have been my 10th-great-grandfather. Want to
try again?
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Franklin is far too young to have been my 10th-great-grandfather.
> Want to try again?
I figured it was possible. He was born 302 years ago, and we're
talking 12 generations. I don't know how old you are, but if you're
in your forties, that would be about 250 years before you were born,
which puts a mean age per generation at about 21, which is stretching
it, but not out of the realm of possibility.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weighted down with concrete blocks
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |foul play...
(650)857-7572
Sherwood Harrington
> Sherwood Harrington <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> writes:
>> Franklin is far too young to have been my 10th-great-grandfather.
>> Want to try again?
> I figured it was possible. He was born 302 years ago, and we're
> talking 12 generations. I don't know how old you are, but if you're
> in your forties, that would be about 250 years before you were born,
> which puts a mean age per generation at about 21, which is stretching
> it, but not out of the realm of possibility.
Sigh. How soon they forget.
--
John Harrington
http://SherWords.blogspot.com
Evan Kirshenbaum
Ah. I know the quote, but didn't have a name to hang it on. Your
characterization:
Had the American Revolution failed, Washington would have been, by
definition, a traitor. Treason, as my 10th-great-grandfather
famously noted, is a tag applied by winners to losers pretty much
exclusively.
seemed closer to the (likely-pseudo-)Franklin quote:
Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging
the losers.
than to John Harrington[1]'s
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
"Franklin" was saying "If you lose, you'll be called a traitor" while
Harrington was saying "If you win, you don't have to worry about being
called a traitor".
[1] The earliest hit on that on Google Books, though it's well after
he died (1778), spells his name consistently as "Harington" (and
the compiler's name is "Hen. Harington"). Immediately after the
line in question, he refers to "my ancestor Sir James Haryngton",
so presumably some attention was paid to changes of spelling.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing.
| Dean Thompson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Sherwood Harrington
> Sherwood Harrington <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> writes:
>> Sigh. How soon they forget.
>>
>> --
>> John Harrington
> Ah. I know the quote, but didn't have a name to hang it on. Your
> characterization:
> Had the American Revolution failed, Washington would have been, by
> definition, a traitor. Treason, as my 10th-great-grandfather
> famously noted, is a tag applied by winners to losers pretty much
> exclusively.
> seemed closer to the (likely-pseudo-)Franklin quote:
> Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging
> the losers.
> than to John Harrington[1]'s
> Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
> Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
> "Franklin" was saying "If you lose, you'll be called a traitor" while
> Harrington was saying "If you win, you don't have to worry about being
> called a traitor".
Now there's a distinction without much of a difference.
> [1] The earliest hit on that on Google Books, though it's well after
> he died (1778), spells his name consistently as "Harington" (and
> the compiler's name is "Hen. Harington"). Immediately after the
> line in question, he refers to "my ancestor Sir James Haryngton",
> so presumably some attention was paid to changes of spelling.
They're all various creative spellings of Haverington.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Evan Kirshenbaum
> [1] The earliest hit on that on Google Books, though it's well after
> he died (1778), spells his name consistently as "Harington" (and
> the compiler's name is "Hen. Harington"). Immediately after the
> line in question, he refers to "my ancestor Sir James Haryngton",
> so presumably some attention was paid to changes of spelling.
Actually, now that I look more closely, what's printed there is a
"Letter from Sir John Haryngton, to Prince Henry, 1609" and appears to
attribute the lines to an unnamed poet:
I met with this verse[1] in a book of my grandfathers writing,
whose father was so moche in the trobles and warres of York and
Lancaster, as to lose all his landes for being a Commander on the
wrong side, and among the traitors, if so I may say; and yet thus
saith a Poet:
Treason dothe never prosper, What's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.
[1] Not the one in question. A verse by King Henry VI.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I value writers such as Fiske.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |They serve as valuable object
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |lessons by showing that the most
|punctilious compliance with the
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |rules of usage has so little to do
(650)857-7572 |with either writing or thinking
|well.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --Richard Hershberger
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>> "Franklin" was saying "If you lose, you'll be called a traitor"
>> while Harrington was saying "If you win, you don't have to worry
>> about being called a traitor".
>
> Now there's a distinction without much of a difference.
Perhaps operationally, but not in emphasis. The first is "Don't worry
about being called a traitor. If you lose, you'll be punished as one
no matter how cleanly you conduct your rebellion", while the second is
"Don't worry about breaking all the rules; if you win, you'll get away
with it."
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes
|closest to applying...
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman
(650)857-7572
Mike Marshall
><Append your own list here of noted and obvious traitors and rebels
>who were liked and respected by their families and followers>
We could find ways to compare you to Hitler too. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Just to get us back on topic, we were comparing Lee to Thomas...
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
I thought the topic was what would have happened if Robert E. Lee
fought for the North in the CIvil War. You stated:
"He would have been disowned by his family and considered a traitor
to his country, just like what happened to George H. Thomas. "
posteres pointed out that Lee was already considered a traitor byt the
USA. You gave the example of General Thomas as being rejected by his
family, but he is not considered a traitor to his country since he
fought for the Unionists. As others have pointed out in this thread,
"traitor" is a tag given to the losing side, and since Lee fought for
the losing side, "traitor" seems like the appropriate title.
Now if you had just stated "He would have been disowned by his family"
you could have used General Thomas as an example.
Rob Wynne
> Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> writes:
>
>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>> Sherwood Harrington <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Had the American Revolution failed, Washington would have been, by
>>>> definition, a traitor. Treason, as my 10th-great-grandfather
>>>> famously noted, is a tag applied by winners to losers pretty much
>>>> exclusively.
>>>
>>> Assuming you're referring to who I think you are, is there evidence
>>> that that's something he actually said rather than something put in
>>> his mouth by Peter Stone?
>>>
>>> I know that a lot of the lines he used were real quotes (or close
>>> to them), but I've never found a source for this one.
>>>
>>
>> "Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging the
>> losers."
>> --Benjamin Franklin[1]
>>
>> [1] The character, if not the historical personage.[2]
>> [2] Its really hard to tell which bits of 1776 dialog were taken
>> from historical sources and which ones were written by the
>> playwrights. :)
>
> _1776_ having been written by Peter Stone. That was what I was
> asking.
>
Um, yeah. And I even knew that, but wasn't paying close attention. *blush*
A great deal of the 1776 dialog *is* taken from letters and journals of the
people in question, so it's not an easy question to answer.
Mike Marshall
>posteres pointed out that Lee was already considered a traitor byt the
>USA. You gave the example of General Thomas as being rejected by his
>family, but he is not considered a traitor to his country since he
>fought for the Unionists.
We've pointed out who thought Lee was a traitor.
traitor not traitor
------- -----------
blinky General George Washington Custis Lee
peterman Wade Hampton
other President Jefferson Davis
people Mary Custis Lee
. .
. .
. .
On the one hand, killing your brother, burning down your mother's house
and stabling your horses in your Church's sanctuary might be OK if it furthers
your political ideology.
On the other hand, standing with your brother to protect your mother's house
and your Church even if you think secession is for lunatics (or "traitors")
might be your cup of tea.
-Mike
racs...@gmail.com
> Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >posteres pointed out that Lee was already considered a traitor byt the
> >USA. You gave the example of General Thomas as being rejected by his
> >family, but he is not considered a traitor to his country since he
> >fought for the Unionists.
>
> We've pointed out who thought Lee was a traitor.
>
> traitor not traitor
> ------- -----------
> blinky General George Washington Custis Lee
> peterman Wade Hampton
> other President Jefferson Davis
> people Mary Custis Lee
Grant Quantrill
Walt Whitman Bill Anderson
Clara Barton Jesse James
Shirley Temple Al Capone
Eisenhower Quisling
Peter Pan Captain Hook
Santa Claus Satan
It's a tie!
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
racs...@gmail.com
> "peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org" <racss...@gmail.com> writes:
> ><Append your own list here of noted and obvious traitors and rebels
> >who were liked and respected by their families and followers>
>
> We could find ways to compare you to Hitler too. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> Just to get us back on topic, we were comparing Lee to Thomas...
And you were saying his friends and family liked him. I thought it was
a remarkably pointless comment and was responding that there are any
number of thoroughly despicable people whose families like them. Lee
is a great deal more complex than that and deserves a more thoughtful
defense than "His mother loved him."
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Mike Marshall
>And you were saying his friends and family liked him. I thought it was
>a remarkably pointless comment and was responding that there are any
>number of thoroughly despicable people whose families like them. Lee
>is a great deal more complex than that and deserves a more thoughtful
>defense than "His mother loved him."
Maybe this will help Peterman get back on topic: "what might have happened to
Lee if he had joined up with the Yankees":
At the end of the ****** war, Thomas deliberately destroyed all records of
his personal life and any other records that might reveal his motivations.
His family and friends in Southampton County, Virginia, disowned him becase
he remained steadfast to the Union. Indeed, his sister, Julia, when asked
to comment upon his early life for a newspaper article reputedly said,
"General Thomas had many friends, a comfortable home and a native state
until he deserted them."
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
So you are saying that Lee's family would have acted exactly like
Thomas' family?
axlq
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
[on what would have happened if Robert E Lee joined the Union Army]
>Disowned by his family, and considered a traitor to his <state>,
>perhaps. IIRC, Lee didn't really want the job with CSA, and only turned
>down the offer to lead the Union Army out of loyalty to his home state.
>Different world back then- people considered themselves citizens of a
>particular state, mostly, and only incidentally as citizens of the
><United> States.
Actually, a lot of Texans still seem to consider themselves Texan
first, U.S. Citizen second. You see occasional bumper stickers
about secession and such.
And in spite of what others may say, many consider Robert E. Lee to
be "the finest gentleman to ever draw breath."
-A
George W Harris
wrote:
>Actually, a lot of Texans still seem to consider themselves Texan
>first, U.S. Citizen second. You see occasional bumper stickers
>about secession and such.
How many of those bumper stickers are on cars
with Oklahoma license plates?
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
racs...@gmail.com
> And in spite of what others may say, many consider Robert E. Lee to
> be "the finest gentleman to ever draw breath."
I don't think there are many who feel otherwise. Lee was a great man
of sterling character, and I don't think it was widely or at least
credibly disputed even at the time.
The fact that his family liked him is unconvincing. The fact that his
enemies admired him is pretty damned impressive.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Mark Jackson
> On the other hand, standing with your brother to protect your
> mother's house and your Church even if you think secession is for
> lunatics (or "traitors") might be your cup of tea.
I've lost track - was Lee a Shiite or a Sunni?
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Life was simple before World War II. After that,
we had systems. - Admiral Grace Hopper
Mike Marshall
>I've lost track - was Lee a Shiite or a Sunni?
There's help for that...
-Mike
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
Just out of curiousity, when did we start using amusing names
for other posters? I was wondering if it was open season, or
if it's only when referring to damn Yankees. Because I've got
a bunch in the hopper I've been wanting to try out....
Mike Beede
Sherwood Harrington
> In article <g11ten$i7e$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
> Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>> "pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org" <racs...@gmail.com> writes:
[concerning Mike Peterson]
>> Maybe this will help Peterman get back on topic: [...]
> Just out of curiousity, when did we start using amusing names
> for other posters? I was wondering if it was open season, or
> if it's only when referring to damn Yankees. Because I've got
> a bunch in the hopper I've been wanting to try out....
I'm confident that you'll marshal your better instincts and keep them in
the hopper.
But, also just out of curiosity, how long do you suppose it'll be before
everyone on this group is named "Mike"?
--
Myke Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Mark Jackson
That would cause a little confusion.
Mind if I call you-all 'Bruce' to keep it clear?
Sherwood Harrington
> Sherwood Harrington wrote:
>> Mike Beede <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> In article <g11ten$i7e$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
>>> Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> "pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org" <racs...@gmail.com> writes:
>> [concerning Mike Peterson]
>>
>>>> Maybe this will help Peterman get back on topic: [...]
>>
>>> Just out of curiousity, when did we start using amusing names
>>> for other posters? I was wondering if it was open season, or
>>> if it's only when referring to damn Yankees. Because I've got
>>> a bunch in the hopper I've been wanting to try out....
>>
>> I'm confident that you'll marshal your better instincts and keep them in
>> the hopper.
>>
>> But, also just out of curiosity, how long do you suppose it'll be before
>> everyone on this group is named "Mike"?
> That would cause a little confusion.
> Mind if I call you-all 'Bruce' to keep it clear?
Jes' callin' us yer "other brother Darryl" will do fine down here, I
reckon.
--
Larry Harrington
Cripple Creek, California
racs...@gmail.com
> In article <g11ten$i7...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
>
> > Maybe this will help Peterman get back on topic: "what might have happened to
> > Lee if he had joined up with the Yankees":
>
> for other posters? I was wondering if it was open season, or
> if it's only when referring to damn Yankees. Because I've got
> a bunch in the hopper I've been wanting to try out....
Some time ago, there was a somewhat heated discussion of something or
other -- heated in the sense of a lot of back-and-forth and some
emotion, but all within the usual bounds of good behavior normal to
this group. However, ronniecat, in the midst of a response, mistakenly
addressed Alex Mitchell as "Andy." For whatever momentary reason, he
was infuriated by the slip and his raised dander became much more
amusing than the subject at hand.
Thereafter, people who wish to tweak his nose do so by purposely
calling him "Andy." I don't think it has ever provoked him enough to
draw him completely off-topic as it did the first time, but in the
absence of wit, we do what we can.
As for Mike's mangling of my name, I assume it's an innocent mistake
-- judging from his responses, he's not very bright and he doesn't
read very well. I certainly don't hold it against him, any more than I
blame him for putting mustard in his barbecue sauce.
Mike Peterson (or whatever)
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Mike Marshall
>As for Mike's mangling of my name, I assume it's an innocent mistake
>-- judging from his responses, he's not very bright
Peterman hits the big three all the time.
Type "+peterman +your_favorite_vulgarity_or_obscenity" into google and you'll
probably get a hit.
He's mean too.
-Mike
Mike Marshall
>Just out of curiousity, when did we start using amusing names
>for other posters? I was wondering if it was open season, or
>if it's only when referring to damn Yankees. Because I've got
>a bunch in the hopper I've been wanting to try out....
If they're not vulger, obscene or mean, try them out on me.
In fact, I wish y'all would start calling me "T-bone"
-Mike "bases his life on Seinfeld"
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
I tried, but no luck:
> Your search - +peterman +your_favorite_vulgarity_or_obscenity - did not
> match any documents.
>
> Suggestions:
>
> * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
> * Try different keywords.
> * Try more general keywords.
Assuming you weren't being that literal, I tried binding the free
variable, and still no luck:
> Your search - +peterman +"by the vaporous balls of the holy ghost" - did not
> match any documents.
>
> Suggestions:
>
> * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
> * Try different keywords.
> * Try more general keywords.
> * Try fewer keywords.
But I did get one more suggestion from Google, so I guess that's
progress for you.
Mike Beede
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
A fundamental principle of nicknames is that the namee
doesn't get to pick. However, taking your preference into
account and checking briefly at
<http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/resource-room/meats/cutsofbeef/>
for related terms, I've selected "Boneless Rump."
Don't thank me, it's all part of the service.
Mike Beede
Jym Dyer
> Texan first, U.S. Citizen second.
=v= Traitors.
<_Jym_>