|
Post by strange on Jan 22, 2011 12:12:17 GMT -5
In times like that, its time to pick up an ax and scream "Danny Boy!" and run barefoot through the snow while intending to reach your destination (or your victims).
Thats what Mr Nicholson would have done.
|
|
|
Post by strange on May 5, 2010 4:30:04 GMT -5
I see the fellow had magnificent hair. Its terrible to suffer the loss, certainly from a fashion perspective. And 58 is a rather young time to die at this day and age.
Stranger sends his sorrows.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Apr 29, 2010 1:03:21 GMT -5
Got my April newsletter today. It has an interesting article about Custer the taxidermist, how he learned how to do it, and apparently mounted the heads of many animals including antelope, deer, and elk. He learned during the jellystone expedition in 73. He writes to Libbie that he prepared a most beautiful buck antelope head and neck for Tom. Tom intends it for his sweetheart and will send it express from Bismarck. It doesn't say who or where Tom's sweetheart is and was. It lists all the animals he killed during the expedition. As an aside and warning to others, I saw on another board where a regular user of photobucket pictures in his posts had all the resolution reduced on his 300 plus pictures on the photobucket website and was notified by photobucket that he would have to begin paying them for his use of his pictures in his account. Apparently the board hits referred back to photobucket everytime his pictures came up on someone's viewing which photobucket took as excessive and commercial. He said the resolution was reduced so much he could hardly see the detail. He apparently was a member of photopoint a few years back and when they put in a cash call and he didn't pay, his pics were deleted. The same implications are here for posters who use photobucket and use them in posts. Make sure you have them saved on your computer somewhere. Google Picassa has been mentioned as a possible free alternative out there but I know nothing about it. bc The people at photobucket should have their entrails stabbed out and their testicles removed. One of my emails did this to me a while back and then finally went back to normal. Thank you for the tip, I use photobucket for posting. But I also keep everything on the computer and at the desk. Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 7, 2009 14:40:15 GMT -5
The Bambino's Curse will continue . . . HOWEVER . . . he's cursing the Yankees for tearing down "The House That Ruth Built" for some high-faluttin', fancy, gawdy stadium that bears no resemblence to the Real Yankees . . . Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Berra, Mantle, Ford, Stengell, Houk, Kubec, et al. The Yankees of Today (other than Jeter) can't hold a candle to the Old Yankees. Therefore The Curse of the Bambino will continue but for the Yankees! Go Red Sox! PS: Thanks everyone for the Birthday Greetings! Yea, I can't stand how all of the ballparks are frequently remodeled or rebuilt. The fences and seats get closer and closer and suddenly everyone is hitting homeruns they aren't supposed to if they were playing the older game. I read a book that said Babe Ruth's balls were consistently hit 100 feet further (in distance) to that of Bonds and Macquire, and that he did it in game, not for homer competitions. Then they beef up all of these stadiums with extra seats and smaller fields and they juice the athletes on steroids and change some of the rules around so that all of these ham and eggers can say that they beat the great man Ruth's records. Ruth is an athlete who can lace up tomorrow and still be effect if he were alive today. I read a detailed book on all of this called "The Year Babe Ruth hit 104 Home Runs" if I recall the title correctly. It said there were several fouls that would've been counted as Home Runs today, and that by distance alone.... Bonds and Macguire would not be able to strike the number of runs they have now. The older ballparks were strategically built against home runs, with very long fields measuring 4-500 feet. One of Ruth's longest balls (conservatively ruling out some of the tall tales that have been written) were up to 546 feet if I recall correctly from my book that I read. And he has hit more balls further than 450 feet than any baseball player that has ever lived. I'm not sure if the Yankees would feel too badly about any curse unless it was one that effected their wallet or gate sales. They'll just buy up all of the good players. I once considered this to be a beautiful display of capitalism at its finest but it eventually gets very irritating. The players are at fault also, always grasping for that meal ticket and neglecting substance and a firmly rooted competitive spirit. Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 6, 2009 19:44:27 GMT -5
Yes, best wishes on your birthday Tommy....yes, the BoSox are in the playoffs, but word on the street has it that the Bambino's Curse has been resurrected this year. keogh I might get lynched for mentioning that I think the Red Sox might have rigged their World Series Victory over the Yankees for reasons of desperation, ratings, and gate sales. Right now, I do not wish such a curse to any athlete or their team and I hope they have or will rise above it because I'm suffering a similar fate from The Minnesota Vikings who I fell in love with a long time ago when they had Moss, the unstoppable force who still couldn't get them to the super bowl. I think that team is corrupt too, and I've stopped watching football. Though Favre should regain my attention, I admire that kind of comeback. Happy Birthday once again and good luck for your Sox. Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Jul 31, 2009 2:38:11 GMT -5
Happy Birthday and many more! Best wishes for "der weasel".
|
|
|
Post by strange on Mar 21, 2009 5:23:55 GMT -5
My basic reasoning is that a mule or a donkey would be an all and out more reliable and functioning animal as opposed to outright horses who are booming with a lot of unchecked energies that can be very difficult handle (at least from what I'd look for in that type of creature). I think Mules and Donkeys have a better wit about themselves and they usually know their way around without having to be perfected in every area of preparation. They are almost like loyal puppies and thats something I could use if I ever had to deal with farm animals.
Meanwhile Horses are powerful beasts with seemingly rather delicate minds as I've observed from watching my relatives who go through every complicated motion of breaking in the attitudes of the creature. I recall an old story from back in the 1920's or 30's when one of my family's fine horses got wild after seeing my grandpa slip on some ice as he was going to water them. He soon got trampled, and he was boy here, and the horse crushed in his chest. Meanwhile my Great Grand Father got nailed in the jaw as he came in to soothe the horse down. I don't think a mule would have that kind of flip out capacity, though I'm guessing that most of you have better perspectives and experiences than I do. I've only been around farm animals every so often on family visits. On the other hand, I was raised with 93 wild dogs stampeding around my childhood home.... so I like to believe that I may have acquired that second sense of assessing other animals at a glance, as a wolf would do when he examines his surroundings.
Of coarse, my talents as an animal whisperer are probably upset by the fact that I have not brushed my teeth in five years (still no cavities either).
For lack of better reasoning, mules and donkeys have simply acquired a poor class status. Patton goes far enough to fire at them on the spot (and that was a very necessary measure at the time he did it, though I think he would've felt worse about if he was doing it to a horse). But all the while, the many nations of this earth have been erected off the backs of mules and donkeys. At the end of the day they are probably not as good looking, but they consistently do what is needed of their services.
Of coarse this also reminds me of the situation where people think cats are that much better than dogs because they appear to have so many refinements. In reality, I think cats are some of the filthiest animals you can get. The only reason any one thinks differently is because the size of their "waste matter" is subtle enough to go undetected for long periods of time whereas a dog simply cannot hide his "business" where ever it may land.
Any way, I'm probably in bad form for derailing something so I'll fall back into my murky abbyss and reappear another time.
Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Mar 19, 2009 22:12:32 GMT -5
What kind of hellish beasts are you guys riding? I've never been bucked or given any attitude from a horse or a mule. I guess I've only been around them once for about a few months on my Uncles farm, but his mule is one of the best animals I've ever seen. Not an ounce stubborn and beautifully fast. Safe enough for a child to ride if he knows how to hold on.
Meanwhile I hear alot of people complaining about mules and donkeys as if they are some inferior race. Quite honestly, my uncle got more trouble from all and out pure breed horses.
Lightning, as the mule was called, was absolutely fantastic. And he was old too, but fantastically quick and powerful. I have no complaints.
The only jackasses I despise are the democrats, with the exception of Custer and a worthy few. Custer's democratic streak is longstanding burn to my ego. Unclean...unclean...unclean.....
Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Mar 13, 2009 17:56:08 GMT -5
Tokeca Wanji: Your top one must be obscene as it has been deleted. Upon review of your second one, it sounds like you are a sure fire American Idol winner. I think you meet all American Idol qualifications in voice, style, and appearance. bc I deleted the last one from my post (I wasn't sure how the board would accept Iron Maiden, but I'll fix some new drawing slideshows which will be set to Elvis's "Edge of Reality".). If you still want that one, just click on my channel and look for "A Dream of the Rain:Power of Strange". That has CaptainKill and all of the other boogie woogies in their crispest format. For all interested, that is my real voice. It happened to me after a fiery night where I had gotten very angry at the Beatles and I began hollering to a point where something apparently broke.... I emerged with a deep raspy growl, with peculiar shades of German that become very visible especially when I'm talking to animals. Of coarse I'll be dying to eat Simon..... meet Simon.... (I'm not his biggest fan). Its very amusing to see singers who place him on such a high critical status, despite knowing the fact that he'd consider Britney Spears to be a well rounded performer and therefore he should be castrated for exposing the earth to the eternal misery of "hit me baby one more time". A piece of music that has probably made many people to reconsider their positions on wife beating. How's that for scathing? The english aren't the only ones who can be cruel. Trust me, I'm German. Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Mar 12, 2009 17:41:02 GMT -5
I'll commit to going to Billings when Tokeca Wanji does. Then there would be some entertainment! bc I probably won't be leaving my house except to drag a large bolder to Connecticut (for reasons of my own merit). But this would about sum me up in person..... Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Feb 26, 2009 23:36:12 GMT -5
I think I'd be taking a lot of credit away from the Indians if I came forward with the idea that Custer simply "ran out of ammo". I was merely stating that it was one of the things which would've occupied Custer's concerns in planning his movements. Custer, of coarse, did not foolishly squander his rounds to the wind as some of Reno and his men did. And Custer made his rounds count very well. What eventually nailed Custer, aside from Benteen's lack of participation (as far as I'm concerned), were those hard hitting daredevil Indians that plunged themselves close and deep to Custer's firing lines. Hard nosed crumbs like White Bull and Spotted Wolf would've been among the greatest dangers. I'm not buying into crzhrs's ideas about the Indians sniping from a distance and conducting long range strategies from afar. I think many would've not only taken it upon themselves to religiously and personally strike at the soldiers from up close.... but I'm also leaning to the effect that it would be in the best interest for the Indians to overpower Custer in a hand to hand situation.
Equipped with firing lines and WELL STOCKED with ammunition and firepower, Custer and his forces could've stucken it out for days atop their assorted hills and high grounds. The Indians needed contact, even at a risk to themselves. They cannot allow wide open spaces for Custer's men to arrive to each other's aid, they especially need to keep Benteen away from thinking he can step in. The Indians immersed themselves, just as accurately as several paintings and depictions will insist, and they dived in close. And its the smarter thing to do when you have a large adversary focusing its energy on the smaller threat. Custer was numerically on the downside and we all agree on that.
And has anyone ever seen Snipers firing at each other? I suppose I don't have very much combat experience other than a few movies and video games that I may have fiddled with in the past, but I think if Custer is up on a distant hill firing at equally distant Indians with everyone taking their time to be careful and duck down from each other....... to me, that would be like WWI trench war and I think that would last a long time.
Granted, thats not the best representation of what crzhrs was saying. But I think the most destructive forces were striking from almost an arm's length away, in a matter of speaking. My theory is that brawling was the biggest threat to disrupting Custer's well formed lines of fire. You have to personally jar them out of the crow's nest or else they would've remained there forever. Custer immediately has the advantage of stocked weaponry and highly trained manuevers to use against the numerically superior and well passioned warriors.
Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Feb 26, 2009 22:55:42 GMT -5
Oh, by the way,
I think I quoted another unworthy account. The statement about one of Benteen's men coming away with an Indian's scalp in front of several frightened onlookers is directly taken from an account of Henry Rinaldo Porter's. Some of you have informed me that there are big problems with accounts that are said to be from Rinaldo Porter, whether he is lying or never said something in the first place. Keep an eye on it.
Any way, on with the subject, old habits die hard!
Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Feb 26, 2009 22:47:12 GMT -5
Fred, Fred...
Such is my curse for having so many quick theories to weasel myself out of actual bookwork! But very quick are some of you to challenge me, so I better get wiser to enforcing my bluff!
First of all, I'd like to patch up your reference to my "more competent officers" quote. Such was not a blow to say that some or anyone would be more qualified than Benteen, but rather to iterate that I think Custer himself and his Star Knot of close companions, with people like Calhoun, Keogh, Yates, Cooke, Tom Custer, etc.... , could've organized smart enough plans to save their buns from the burner if that had been their choice. Meaning to say, if Reno can make it out alive with so many mistakes.... then almost any one else could.
For as many mistakes that we debate between Reno and Benteen, it seems that Custer and his Knot were working a very tight and professional operation with not even the slightest idea of pulling out or falling themselves into disarray. At the moment, I can only theorize as to what Custer was thinking but I can also mention a few details on why I think he thought he may have been winning and why retreat was never considered even when the situation was dire.
Starting with the retreating details....
-I suppose Custer killed some of his chances at a getaway when he made the decision to slaughter the horses, or at least have them lay down, for use as a worthy breastwork to fire from. I suppose at that moment, Custer was making a move to "hold the field". Holding the field is my best theory to explain why no retreat was being considered or planned, and it places more emphasis on "bring packs" as far as my reasoning goes.
-Has Custer ever retreated? During the Civil War he was described as the First man on and the Last man off of any given battlefield. Even in the battles which officially went down as a loss for the Union (such as Gettysburg which apparently leaned in favor of the south), Custer always came out of these battles with high praises for "winning" at whatever neck of the woods he was operating in. He holds his head above the water long enough to look really good in battles where others in his own army may have failed, and he can thus claim victories from battles that Union had lost, simply by hauling his weight. Therefore, I remain curious, has Custer ever retreated without nailing a considerable blow to the enemy and coming away with something? I definitely know that he is not stupid, and, like Wild Bill Hickock, he's credited with a cool head that eases him away from unnecessary confrontations. But when he has the scent of a win, he will pursue it. And he's often not bothered by the consequences.
-Lastly, Custer never lost control of the command that went down with him. The Stands were made from far stretching places with multiple commanders that did not budge, even to their demises, from Custer's official game plan. Essentially, as I know it, there were 3 primary areas where the stands were made. I think its been divided into the Keogh area, the Calhoun area, and Custer's very own Last Stand Hill. For these men to operate so tightly with Custer's wishes while being so far away from him and approaching direly to their own nearing fates...... I have to believe that retreat was never considered until it was far beyond the point of being too late already.
Now onto why Custer thought he was winning....
Well its just like as I stated before and above. I simply don't think Custer was intimidated by the numbers (even if it went beyond what he was expecting.) and I believe the Indians, in these numbers, give an awkward stumbling block in trying to figure out whether you have them beaten or not. Indians are tricky to a point where they can puff themselves up to intimidate you while they themselves are retreating, and they are clumsy enough to not keep track of their losses when they are organized in great number. The Indian's have a system of military that places a great deal of control and decision making into the roles of each individual band leader. When one band fails and drops away, there's another right around the corner that will think he's doing pretty good and he he will stay the coarse with his particular group of men.
Custer and his Knot took down about as many men as they lost and maybe a few more. That places their kills (as far as I'm concerned) at around 2, 3, maybe 4 or 5 hundred.
What does 4-5 hundred mean to 1-2500 Indians? Its a good pull to kill more than you lose, but even that number would've looked a little bit low next to how many Indians were there. Some, like Red Horse, actually were intimidated, which means Custer was getting somewhere. And the Indians are actually notso hard to intimidate when you acknowledge that great number of them were spooked away when one of Benteen's soldiers scalped a native in front of their eyes. A great number of the Indian forces were also small children in what we consider today, so it stands to reason that the numbers become less intimidating as soon as you feel that you have called their bluff.....
..... I think Custer was trying to call their bluff. I think he knew they could only stand heavy fighting to a certain point before they'd eventually fall away and crumble. When Custer set himself up to nest atop his hill, he was trying to get as close as he could to them before they could fall away. And would've been a hard victory, but the dominoes would've stumbled into place as soon as Benteen had made a good use of himself.
Benteen did not have to, because that was more of Reno's responsibility.... but along we go to that spinning circle of debate..... round and round.
Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Feb 26, 2009 17:05:28 GMT -5
If Benteen steps in to relieve Reno of his command, due to his delicate mental state, would that make it Benteen's responsibility to follow through with Reno's mission?
Benteen took the reigns over Reno's detachment, and instead of following through with the original directives to hit the Indians and await for support (as Reno was instructed), Benteen seemingly cooperated with the wishes of the wily subordinate who wished to get the hell out of there pronto. Thus, is Benteen refusing orders on behalf of Reno? Or am I making wild military speculations?
Strange
|
|
|
Post by strange on Feb 26, 2009 16:47:34 GMT -5
Custer could've retreated from anywhere. He was not intending to kill himself, but he seems to have believed that he was winning or that he needed to hold up a position for the safety reasons of making sure that Reno and Benteen were not overrun. Or he was making sure that he could make an organized retreat without foolishly squandering 30+ men (Reno).
Custer had options for retreat in at least the first hour and a half of the conflict (if you believe the 3-4 hour time frame of the heavy fighting, as I believe). Aside from a couple nutcases who threw down their arms too early and tried to surrender (4-5 soldiers accounted by White Bull and another native), there were no attempts to give up until the very end when it was all too late and most of the officers were killed (thats when a few survivors made a last attempt to salvage their lives.).
If Reno could organize a retreat while openly slipping "out of his head" in front of everyone else, then more competent officers could've also organized a way out if that had been their intention. If Red Horse was correct, the Indians were repulsed at least 5 times (to a major degree), so not everything was looking dire from the white man's perspective. Again now, I'm also going to iterate the unusual fight patterns of the Indians. Speaking roughly, the natives are organized into "bands" and these factions have varying degrees of motivation and success. Speaking bluntly, you can off as many bands as you want but if you allow some one like Crazy Horse to stomp through.... (Keogh's area?).... then that crumb will give a great message to other natives and you'll have an achy breaky hell of unpredictable warfare on your hands.
Indians are notso conscious of how many overall casualties they are sustaining because their groups are very compact (albeit MULTIPLE in this case, as in we're dealing with many compact groups) and they're not paying as much attention to what is happening on the other man's neck of the woods. When Custer was defeated, he was surely being reminded whenever ammo was running low, or whenever the slightest casualty was reported, and on top of everything altogether he was also trying thinking about the current state of affairs concerning Benteen and Reno. The Indians, on the otherhand, are not worried about ammo because a) they were at home and they were probably well stocked, and b) they had alternate weapons such as arrows, clubs, and knives. And they don't immediately take casualties to heart as long as they have someone inspiring to cling to. In which case, Mr. Crazy Horse enjoys taking a ride through a midst of soldiers and wandering out unharmed. Indians take a spiritual significance from a stunt like this, and afterward they are terribly difficult to force down.
And again, Indians are not accustomed to fighting with the type of numbers they used against Custer. The bands (roughly 20 or 30?) are not usually pulled together for major battles unless someone is springing a Fetterman style of trap. Each band keeps track of its own progress and so many bands were functioning from different areas and probably not reporting to each other. To simply stretch their head around to observe what is going on past the sea of soldiers,warriors, and land...... not all of them could keep track of the overall conflict. Therefore you will get conflicting accounts, and some accounts will simply conflict when the Indians are not telling the truth while other accounts will conflict when you juggle the perspectives of the many Indian commanders. Case in point, Red Horse saw alot more blood than Gall..... therefore Gall is either lying or he simply happened to be more successful than the other Indians who slammed themselves into a brickwall of "area fire" and were immediately wounded from multiple areas of their body (as Red Horse details in his drawings, toward what his own people suffered).
Strange
|
|