Does the CSA dominate "civil war memory"

[Hugh Lawson]

It is said often said that the rebels won in civil war memory what they
lost in the war.

So I've been looking around for evidence of this proposition. Can't
find any.

For example, a google search for images of "confederate soldier monuments"
turned up about 540,000 hits. Sounds like a lot, but a parallel search
for "union soldier monuments" turned up 2,900,000 hits. Try it
yourself if skeptical.

It was asserted here some time ago that there were many more regimental
histories of CS units than US units. This page on regimental histories
in the Library of Congress seems to show no rebel advantage.

The confederates can't put up anybody to match Abraham Lincoln as a
subject of books.

So, what causes the statements that the rebels won in "culture" what
they lost in the war? If you said this, what were you thinking about?



hl

[MITO MINISTER]

Answer your own damn questions, Perfesser!

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:


> Answer your own damn questions, Perfesser!

Reform your unacceptable behavior MM.

hl

[Hugh Lawson]

Because MM couldn't understand this post, I'll restate it in more basic
English.

I can't find proof that a pro-CSA-opinions have the upper hand in
American culture. Is there any evidence for this idea?

hl

P.S. On regimental histories see:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/main/uscivilwar/

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 9, 8:22 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Answer your own damn questions, Perfesser!
>
> Reform your unacceptable behavior MM.
>
> hl

Catullus, my friend. A true Roman. Why does he embarass you, you fuddy-
duddy old Southern fart? I bet you wear string ties and white "Colonel
Sanders" - style suits. You don't have an air-conditioner, you use
ceiling fans.

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

[ snip ]

> Catullus [ snip ]

Nobody's interested in your schoolboy homework M&M.

hl

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 10, 9:03 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > Catullus [ snip ]
>
> Nobody's interested in your schoolboy homework M&M.
>
> hl

And they're interested in your lame translations? Christ, I'm the only
other person here who actually SUPPORTS studying the Classics.

Now, then. Why are you embarassed by an erotic Roman writer?

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Oct 10, 9:03 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:


> And they're interested in your lame translations? Christ, I'm the only
> other person here who actually SUPPORTS studying the Classics.

Tell us about the classics you're reading now.

HL

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 11, 8:16 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought you'd never ask. Catullus of course. Ceasar, again. I never
get tired of his straight-forward third-person prose. Tacitus and
Sallust. Simple stuff. I like history. Sue me! Do I use glossaries?
You bet I do. Is it a long hard slog? It often is.

I don't understand the point of your question. I happen to like the
Classics. You are a neo-Confederate Southern White Boy who defends the
South, pretending to be a progressive and objective American who
deplores Jim Crow. I despise you because you are a lying piece-of-shit
who secretly espouses White Supremacy and defends the ante-bellum
South. Your comments about your 'Latin translations' are just
bullshit. They are irrelevent asides. They do nothing to BUTTRESS your
veracity.

[Hugh Lawson]

Piffle.

HL

[Hugh Lawson]

Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:

>> I thought you'd never ask. Catullus of course. Ceasar, again. I never
>> get tired of his straight-forward third-person prose. Tacitus and
>> Sallust. Simple stuff. I like history. Sue me! Do I use glossaries?
>> You bet I do. Is it a long hard slog? It often is.

What dictionary do you use? Want some suggestions?

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 12, 8:28 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

I use a LOT of them, but I'm open to suggestions. My dislike of your
neo-Confederate views does NOT prevent me from gaining knowledge -
even from you.

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Oct 12, 8:28 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> I thought you'd never ask. Catullus of course. Ceasar, again. I never
>> >> get tired of his straight-forward third-person prose. Tacitus and
>> >> Sallust. Simple stuff. I like history. Sue me! Do I use glossaries?
>> >> You bet I do. Is it a long hard slog? It often is.
>>
>> What dictionary do you use?  Want some suggestions?
>
> I use a LOT of them, but I'm open to suggestions.

Which Latin-English dictionaries do you use?

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 17, 6:52 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oxford. The heavy fat expensive one.

[Hugh Lawson]

Why did you wait to mention ownership of a reference book costing more
than $300.00?

Innocent bystanders can look at this url:

http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Latin-Dictionary-P-Glare/dp/0198642245/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350559902&sr=8-1&keywords=oxford+latin+dictionary

[Hugh Lawson]

cigarm...@gmail.com writes:

> I paid nowhere near 300 bucks for it. My copy is about pretty old and
> I got it in a used bookstore for maybe 50 bucks. The covers are
> soiled. Why are you so obsessed with dictionaries?

I'm interested in getting more information about you. Your concealment
and evasion capture the interest of people, though little else about you
does.


> I have tons. I
> collect them more than I use them, though. Amazon is the last place I
> would buy a dictionary from.

Where do you keep them? Isn't living space pretty expensive in Japan?

[Hugh Lawson]

cigarm...@gmail.com writes:

> I paid nowhere near 300 bucks for it. My copy is about pretty old and
> I got it in a used bookstore for maybe 50 bucks. The covers are
> soiled.

Explain how you use in reading Latin such a dictionary. Don't you find
a smaller (physically) dictionary more useful in reading?

[Hugh Lawson]

Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:

> cigarm...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> I paid nowhere near 300 bucks for it. My copy is about pretty old and
>> I got it in a used bookstore for maybe 50 bucks. The covers are
>> soiled. Why are you so obsessed with dictionaries?

I want to give you more chances to display your mendacity. You have
placed yourself on the examination table, so to speak, by your
inattention to veracity in your utterances.

What other dictionaries do you possess? Do you have the OED, for
example? DAB? DNB? OCD?

[Joel Edge]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:22:27 -0400, cigarm...@gmail.com wrote
(in article <6b3a08ff-9140-4161...@googlegroups.com>):

> I paid nowhere near 300 bucks for it. My copy is about pretty old and I got
> it in a used bookstore for maybe 50 bucks. The covers are soiled. Why are

> you so obsessed with dictionaries? I have tons. I collect them more than I

> use them, though. Amazon is the last place I would buy a dictionary from.

So you have a dictionary fetish. "The covers are soiled....", never mind, I
don't need to know.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 19, 8:57 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

I find the internet faster and easier. Type in ANY Latin word on
Google. The Oxford was a find, a real score. I had to have it. I have
many of the LOEB texts (green) as well.

A smaller dictionary is handy, but I work as a translator, it's my
living, so it's no extra chore to flip through a big fat book because
I get paid for it. The real chore is to get at the author's meaning
and then try to strike a balance between accuracy and fluid reading.
And meeting the friggin' deadlines. And making sure that I get paid!
Can't say I've ever translated Latin professionally. Happy now?

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 19, 10:41 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> writes:

The OCD I have. Big deal. The SHORTER as well. I'm looking right at
it. A 2-volume work. I have 2 sets. And the Advanced Learner's. 2
copies as well, buster. The OED, see another post of mine. DAB? DNB?
"Inattention to veracity"? What is this, homework?

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 20, 9:26 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:22:27 -0400, cigarmanw...@gmail.com wrote

"Soiled covers" is a bookselling description. A technical term. You
betray your lack of a solid Clasical education.

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Oct 19, 8:57 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> cigarmanw...@gmail.com writes:
>> > I paid nowhere near 300 bucks for it. My copy is about pretty old and
>> > I got it in a used bookstore for maybe 50 bucks.  The covers are
>> > soiled.
>>
>> Explain how you use in reading Latin such a dictionary.  Don't you find
>> a smaller (physically) dictionary more useful in reading?
>
> I find the internet faster and easier. Type in ANY Latin word on
> Google. The Oxford was a find, a real score. I had to have it. I have
> many of the LOEB texts (green) as well.

Do you read Greek?

--
Hugh Lawson
hu.l...@gmail.com

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 22, 11:05 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

> hu.law...@gmail.com

ZERO Greek, but I know the alphabet. Not taught at any of my schools
in my day, except university, and by then I had no interest in the
Classics. I was more interested in certain vices that any 16-year old
is into. Same ones as you and Edge were interested in, probably, apart
from the abuse of domesticated animals.

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:


> ZERO Greek, but I know the alphabet. Not taught at any of my schools
> in my day, except university, and by then I had no interest in the
> Classics. I was more interested in certain vices that any 16-year old
> is into.

You were not like other 16-year olds. There is something missing in
your makeup.

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:


> I was more interested in certain vices that any 16-year old
> is into. Same ones as you and Edge were interested in, probably, apart
> from the abuse of domesticated animals.

There is something missing in your psychological makeup MM. You don't
realize how strange this admission makes you seem, do you? This and the
strange statements about the school restroom graffiti that you rejoice
at remembering. You also don't see the inappropriateness of your
genocidal language.

You keep trying to impress me, by bragging about your two years at
Catholic school, while at the same time pretending to scorn me, with
your "Perfesser" gibe. You can't see how maladjusted this makes you
look, can you?

Were you been abused in some way, Mito Minister? You complained that
your teachers "rammed [Latin] down your throat". If the course was
required MM, the teachers had to teach it.

The hatred in yourself is your own affair MM. When you express it
daily in your posts, it projects, as if upon a screen, a picture of your
own nature. You need to change yourself.

HL

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 23, 8:37 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

Now you're a psychologist? You, a Southern White Heritage supporter,
casting aspersions? That's rich!

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 23, 9:17 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

You asked about Latin. I told you. Latin graffitti were rather unusual
in the 20th century, so I remember it, with a chuckle. No one in any
of my Latin classes enjoyed them, so it was normal to make, and write
jokes, in the very same language. And I didn't write them, I read
them. And I remember them. Is this so hard to believe?

[Hugh Lawson]

You are the one who wished death upon an entire population.

HL

[Hugh Lawson]

It's not hard to believe about you.

HL

[MITO MINISTER]

Your kin PERPETRATED death and rape and torture for 350 years, also
known as SOUTHERN HERITAGE!

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:


> Your kin PERPETRATED death and rape and torture for 350 years, also
> known as SOUTHERN HERITAGE!

You called for death for an entire population. Your hatred fills you,
and overflows into your posts, MM.

What is it about your education that you are hiding?

hl

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 24, 8:00 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

You are a defender of "Southern Heritage". A heritage of murder,
mutilation, rape, slavery, theft and deceit. You are the one who
needs to come to terms with his past, not me.

The entire White Population of the White South needs to swear an oath
of loyalty to the USA or be deported.

[hla...@triad.rr.com]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

> You are the one who
> needs to come to terms with his past, not me.

You've got it backwards, son. You need to go to a good high school to
overcome your miseducation.

I hope your life becomes more pleasant.

hl

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:17:38 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<41b25df6-eca6-468e...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 20, 9:26ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:22:27 -0400, cigarmanw...@gmail.com wrote
>> (in article <6b3a08ff-9140-4161...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> I paid nowhere near 300 bucks for it. My copy is about pretty old and I got

>>> it in a used bookstore for maybe 50 bucks. ï¿œThe covers are soiled. ï¿œWhy are

>>> you so obsessed with dictionaries? I have tons. I collect them more than I
>>> use them, though. Amazon is the last place I would buy a dictionary from.
>>
>> So you have a dictionary fetish. "The covers are soiled....", never mind, I
>> don't need to know.
>
> "Soiled covers" is a bookselling description. A technical term. You
> betray your lack of a solid Clasical education.

Oh yeah, I believe ya, man. Soiled covers.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 25, 9:47 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:17:38 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <41b25df6-eca6-468e-9078-42e6a1f6e...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > On Oct 20, 9:26 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:22:27 -0400, cigarmanw...@gmail.com wrote
> >> (in article <6b3a08ff-9140-4161...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> I paid nowhere near 300 bucks for it. My copy is about pretty old and I got

> >>> it in a used bookstore for maybe 50 bucks.  The covers are soiled.  Why are

> >>> you so obsessed with dictionaries? I have tons. I collect them more than I
> >>> use them, though. Amazon is the last place I would buy a dictionary from.
>
> >> So you have a dictionary fetish. "The covers are soiled....", never mind, I
> >> don't need to know.
>
> > "Soiled covers" is a bookselling description. A technical term. You
> > betray your lack of a solid Clasical education.
>
> Oh yeah, I believe ya, man. Soiled covers.

It is a technical term used in the book trade. Why is this so hard to
believe?

[Joel Edge]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:42:40 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<af80fbae-0df4-4f5b...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 25, 9:47ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:17:38 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>> (in article
>> <41b25df6-eca6-468e-9078-42e6a1f6e...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>):
>>

>>> On Oct 20, 9:26ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:22:27 -0400, cigarmanw...@gmail.com wrote
>>>> (in article <6b3a08ff-9140-4161...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>>> I paid nowhere near 300 bucks for it. My copy is about pretty old and I
>>>>> got

>>>>> it in a used bookstore for maybe 50 bucks. ï¿œThe covers are soiled. ï¿œWhy

>>>>> are
>>>>> you so obsessed with dictionaries? I have tons. I collect them more than
>>>>> I
>>>>> use them, though. Amazon is the last place I would buy a dictionary from.
>>
>>>> So you have a dictionary fetish. "The covers are soiled....", never mind,
>>>> I
>>>> don't need to know.
>>
>>> "Soiled covers" is a bookselling description. A technical term. You
>>> betray your lack of a solid Clasical education.
>>
>> Oh yeah, I believe ya, man. Soiled covers.
>
> It is a technical term used in the book trade. Why is this so hard to
> believe?

I know it's a term used in the book selling trade. In your case; God only
knows what it means.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 26, 9:33 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:42:40 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <af80fbae-0df4-4f5b-8b34-a1311adbd...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 9:47 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:17:38 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <41b25df6-eca6-468e-9078-42e6a1f6e...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>> On Oct 20, 9:26 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:22:27 -0400, cigarmanw...@gmail.com wrote
> >>>> (in article <6b3a08ff-9140-4161...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>>>> I paid nowhere near 300 bucks for it. My copy is about pretty old and I
> >>>>> got

> >>>>> it in a used bookstore for maybe 50 bucks.  The covers are soiled.  Why

> >>>>> are
> >>>>> you so obsessed with dictionaries? I have tons. I collect them more than
> >>>>> I
> >>>>> use them, though. Amazon is the last place I would buy a dictionary from.
>
> >>>> So you have a dictionary fetish. "The covers are soiled....", never mind,
> >>>> I
> >>>> don't need to know.
>
> >>> "Soiled covers" is a bookselling description. A technical term. You
> >>> betray your lack of a solid Clasical education.
>
> >> Oh yeah, I believe ya, man. Soiled covers.
>
> > It is a technical term used in the book trade. Why is this so hard to
> > believe?
>
> I know it's a term used in the book selling trade. In your case; God only
> knows what it means.

You didn't know that.

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:


>> I know it's a term used in the book selling trade. In your case; God only
>> knows what it means.
>
> You didn't know that.

It's a figure of speech MM.

When somebody says "God only knows" he doesn't literally mean that no
human knows.

He means that he has absolutely no idea what *you* may mean by it.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 28, 12:03 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

D'uh.

[Joel Edge]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:38:13 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<cdbc0459-895b-4918...@o5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>):

See. Now you've only confused him.
Good work.