BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:36 AM

Figured there was no point in luring Flamenco Ted into the middle of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:41 AM

As far as I can gather Foolestroupe the only person being attacked 'ad hominen' here is myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:48 AM

ROFL!

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:51 AM

That's because you aren't able to look at it from alternative points of view, Teribus, as I've said before. ;-)

Pretty well everyone here has been attacked 'ad hominem' by now and has launched ad hominem attacks in return. There's nothing unusual about that. It's what happens when egos start arguing. It's inevitable. Look at the sorry display put on in every political campaign anywhere at all. LOL! Nothing but ad hominem attacks as far as the eye can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:51 AM

So pleased to have brightened up your day

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:52 AM

We're talkin' about ya, not to ya! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:00 AM

Thank God for small mercies

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 04:15 AM

Somehow one can't help feel that the essential nob joke is getting lost in all this frivolous talk of historical facts. Facts, which as we all know, can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.

Some Indians got killed. some soldiers got killed. It was very sad for the people who knew tham.

I think I mentioned elsewhere that I was reading Ellen Poulsen's interesting book about the women who were connected with the Dillinger gang - 'don't call us molls' - is the title. Bloody miserable lives - they had.

Somehow you can't help but feel we are all voyeurs into this misery of people who died long ago, and maybe we should concentrate more on people we can help. Either that or come up with a decent nob joke.

from whence do you hale Terribus, I always had you down as a Brit?

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 07:04 AM

All hail the Reigning Teribus!







If he can rain, you can hail!

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:14 AM

Actually, many of those "failed farms" ARE now owned by the Indians, at least around here. And the potato and other crops raised and sold by the Shoshone and Bannock (also spelled "Bannack") tribes bring in some pretty decent money -- not as much as the casinos, but pretty good money nonetheless.

Other "failed farms" are actually buildings abandoned when the owners could afford to build new and bigger homes elsewhere on the spread. Some too were sold, for whatever reason, and consolidated into larger spreads. And yet another reason for abandoned buildings in the West is that they are old line camps that are no longer used (regularily, that is -- some are still used intermittently even if the roof IS no longer intact).

Dear Teribus -- I spent better than ten years administering both Unix- and Windows- based computer systems and I'm having to "pick up the screwdrive" a little bit again. I <+2>WOULD NEVER
Custer might have survived if he'd thought the same, instead of seperating his forces and having the hubris that took him and his men to their deaths.

And as for your "argument" that "Stone Age" (neolithic? paleolithic?) means "clumsy and backwards" -- at the turn of the 20th Century a surgeon in, I believe, the Netherlands used a neolithic saw to amputate a leg. It worked just as well and as fast as the best bone saw of the period.

And I will leave you with this thought, Mr. T.: a bow made from sinew-backed wood, such as were used by the Plains tribes, firing a stone-tipped arrow will kill you just as dead as a round from an AK-74 or and M-16A2; a stone axe will crush your skull as completely as a iron-headed mace; an obsidian dagger will work as well (or perhaps even more effectively) than a Fairbairn-Applegate knife.

And the Sioux and Cheyenne, at the LBH, had weapons far superior to those I've just described -- and contrary to uninformed opinion, they could use them as well as the soldiers (and given that rifle practice wasn't very common among the soldiers of 1876 -- see "Forty Miles A Day On Beans And Hay" -- probably better).

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:25 AM

I don't know what I did, but that statement should have read:

I would NEVER trust technology with my life if I could help it. That's why I'm expert with map and compass as well as owning a GPS, and know several ways of determining direction without a compass (e.g., I wear an analog watch). I don't believe in "putting all of my eggs in one basket," especially one as frail as technology can be.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:57 AM

The html was goofed up, as is revealed in the source code. I use caret then font="+2 followed by quote then caret, and close the different font with caret /font caret (let's see if this mix of code and words displays). Your closing code was caret/+2) with the extra + and no closing caret.

Black Elk and Mari Sandoz and Dee Brown all give good information about the variety of weapons available in the Greasy Grass. Here's a starting place. This is the cooperative association that works with the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:07 AM

You Irish Rapaire?

To be sure, To be sure, To be sure...

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:15 AM

The Documentary I mentioned before - released under a series name of 'Battlefield' or 'Battlefield Detectives' as it was shown on TV here in Oz, stressed the number and range and overall superior firepower of the Indians' weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:11 PM

SRS from your "starting place" I gleaned the following:

Point 1
It would appear that the general concensus of expert opinion backs up what is stated in the Wikipedia entry I submitted with regard to numbers present. The entry that you so roundly disparaged, don't go off into another hissy-fit and start screaming and shouting again, take it up with the historians and archaeologists who have studied this to a far greater degree than you or I ever will.

Quote from text - "Granted, numbers as high as 3000 have been given for the Northern Cheyennes but census records, testimony, and other records all indicate that this high a number was impossible for the 1876 period of time." - End Quote.

By the way in your ranting tirade did you really mean to use the word "paternalistic", or were you frothing so much you forgot to use patronising - no matter.

Point 2
The normal fighting formation for dismounted cavalry was in skirmish lines. Something else I believe I mentioned and was told I was in error.


Point 3
Weapons surrendered and ballistic evidence that identified spent rounds identified that the Indians fighting against Custer had just as many guns as Custer, i.e. 1 in 3 Indians engaging Custer was armed with a rifle. Which means that the bulk were armed with bow and lance.

Point 4
The normal effective range of the Springfield was more than twice that of the Henry repeater. In the hands of trained infantrymen the sustained rate of fire using the Springfield was greater than the repeater. Although the Indians had gathered some ammunition and weapons from their victory against Crooks, they were short of ammunition.


Point 5
Paul Hedren's opinion that very few of the 7th Cavalry's rifles jammed is completely at odds with the independent statements given by Reno and Reno's men. Personally and logically I can see only one reason why the weapons of one group of men should jam while exactly the same type of weapon being used in the same engagement should not jam. One group of men (Reno's) were in a position where they could use their rifles and they jammed for reasons given, whereas the other group (Custer's) were positioned where they could not effectively bring fire to bear on the enemy and their guns not being so hot did not jam.


Point 6
Bows and arrows were used in indirect fire by Gall's warriors in their attack against L Troop who were with Custer in the depression on top of a small hill.


Point 7
Custer had placed and deployed his men in a position where every single advantage they had, or should have had, had they been trained disciplined soldiers, was negated. Your recommended starting point states in terms very similar to those I used way, way, down this thread that had they formed their company in close order and fired in controlled volleys or half volleys they would have cleared everything in front of them. Volley fire would then have enhanced the effective range of the Springfield out towards 1000 yards.


Rapaire - 14 Apr 06 - 09:25 AM

"I would NEVER trust technology with my life if I could help it. That's why I'm expert with map and compass as well as owning a GPS, and know several ways of determining direction without a compass (e.g., I wear an analog watch). I don't believe in "putting all of my eggs in one basket," especially one as frail as technology can be."

Could not agree more, in my case the analog watch also has to be clockwork not battery powered.

Rapaire - 14 Apr 06 - 09:14 AM

Custer's men, or at least some of them, given their state of training and discipline, might possibly have got away with their lives if Custer had been killed by the very first shot of the engagement, someone might of emerged to actually provide leadership - One thing is certain Custer certainly was incapable of it.

I do not think that I did make any arguement advocating that "Stone Age" (neolithic? paleolithic?) means "clumsy and backwards". All I said originally was that at the time of this battle the North American Plains Indian was nearer to their stone age ancestors than either SRS or Metchosin realised. In what I have read, including articles recommended by SRS, Metchosin and Melani there was evidence that supported that point of view - you yourself in this post refer to a bow shooting a stone-tipped arrow. At the time the battle of the Little Big Horn was fought (1876) the North American Plains Indians had only ever 'domesticated' two animals, first was the dog, then later after the arrival of the Spaniards to the South, the horse. I will stand by my statement that they were nearer to their stone-age ancestors than is generally realised.

And I will leave you with this thought, Repaire, and please before jumping down my throat check SRS's sight with regard to weapons, your Plains Indian bow made from sinew-backed wood, firing a stone-tipped arrow will kill you just as dead as a round from an AK-74 or and M-16A2 - FROM A RANGE OF BETWEEN 30 AND 50 YARDS. A pencil or a sharp stick can kill you Repaire, lots of things can kill you, and it's all completely besides the point.

The Sioux and Cheyenne, at the LBH, had weapons far superior to those stone-age weapons you described -- However, they did NOT have superior weapons compared to the men of the 7th Cavalry who opposed them, as was Little Hawks contention.

Now logic would seem to indicate that if you have a group of men hunkered down in a depression on top of a little hill (Custer's position) unless you are on higher ground looking down on that position neither the attacker's or defender's guns are of much use to them. In this situation the Indians possessed the only 'indirect' fire weapon on the battlefield, the bow and arrow, and they used it to great effect against Custer's men. Not my supposition here Repaire, but eye witness account and statement.

As to whether or not the Indians could use those guns as well as the soldiers? Well against the calibre and standard of training of the soldiers of the 7th Cavalry certainly, although they did not defeat Reno or Benteen's troopers, and that was more of a straightforward gun action. Again, not my supposition here Repaire, but eye witness account and statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:15 PM

This is gonna be somewhat longish and somewhat technical. Skip it if you wish.

Teribus, here's the list of the minimum number of individual firearms used at the LBH. You can find this list as table 6-1 in Richard Allen Fox, Jr.'s book Archeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle (Norman, Oklahoma: U. of Oklahoma Press, 1993) p. 78. Fox and others went over the Custer site with metal detectors, finding shell casings and fired bullets to arrive at this list.

Forehand and Wadsworth .32 caliber, 1; Colt .36, 1; Sharps .40, 1. In .44 caliber: Smith and Wesson, 3; Evans, 1; Henry, 62; Winchester Model 1873, 7; Colt conversion, 1; Colt Model 1860, 1; Colt Model 1871, 1; Remington Model 1858, 1; Remington Model 1858 conversion, 1; Ballard, 1. In .45 caliber: Colt Model 1873 pistol, 12; Springfield Model 1873 carbine, 69; Sharps, 1; Unknown, 1. In .50 caliber: Maynard, 1; Sharps, 27; Springfield, 6; Unidentified, 1; Unknown .50 balls, 1. Others: Star .54 caliber, 1; Spencer .56/56, 2; Spencer .56/50, 3; Enfield.577, 1; Unknown .44 or .45 caliber balls, 2; Unknown shotgun, 1.

Thats a MINIMUM of 215 individual firearms. The arrows used were all metal tipped.

Here is what is said (p. 241) about the .45/55 carbine's failure to extract. The evidence is taken from cartridge cases picked up at the Custer site; the author also discusses the Reno site.

As to the former category of evidence [torn, pried or scratched cartridge cases], only 3 of the 88 (3.4 percent).45/55-caliber cartridge cases recovered from the Custer field exhibit pry or scratch marks; none displayed a ripped or severed cartridge-case rim. The cases with pry marks represent 3 of the 69 individual carbines (4.3 percent) discerned on the basis of firearm identification analysis. With a figure of 210 carbines in the Custer battalion, 4.3 percent would suggest that about 9 carbines used and the Custer battle could have experienced extraction problems.

As for the assertion that the Henry rifle wasn't accurate beyond about 50 yards, I submit the following; you can read the entire thing http://www.rarewinchesters.com/articles/art_hen_04.shtml.

In showing the type of sights that were used and given the fact that most soldiers were average or less marksmen, it is doubtful if they could hit a target beyond 200 to 300 yards. An accomplished marksmen would hit with any gun including the Henry. When we look at the type of ammunition used in the Henry, it is doubtful that even an expert marksmen could hit targets regularly at long ranges of over 500 yards with a Henry.

Let's examine the type of ammunition that was used in the Henry. The Henry cartridge is a rim-fire round that uses a casing .875 inches long. The total length of the round is 1.345 inches. A 200 or 216 grain bullet of .446 diameter was loaded atop 26 to 28 grains of black powder. This round had a muzzle velocity of 1125 feet per second and muzzle energy of 568 foot pounds of energy.(8) According to these ballistics, most shooting experts will readily agree that this cartridge is hardly adequate for deer size animals and certainly no match for buffalo or grizzly bears. The .44 Henry's 200 grain bullet is a flat nose bullet, later a pointed nose was used, with a ballistic coefficient number of about .153. The coefficient number is the bullet's ability to overcome resistance in flight relative to the performance of a standard projectile used to compute ballistic tables. A number of .153 represents a bullet of very poor long range capabilities. The .44 Henry must have had a giant rainbow trajectory making hitting a target past 200 yards almost impossible for the average shooters.

The average soldier during the Plains Wars had, if he was lucky, three weeks training -- primarily in close order drill, guard mount, and other such "soldiering" techniques -- before being sent to his unit, where he was expected to pick up the necessary further instruction. Riflery was NOT emphasized until the Army Reforms of the 1880s -- and then the soldiers took to it with such enthusiasism that by the Spanish-American War in 1898 the American soldier are a very good shot indeed. (See Forty Miles A Day On Beans And Hay for an excellent discussion of these topics, among others.)

Custer may have taken the best of the Regiment with him, but their training most probably left quite a bit to be desired when they were faced with Gall, Crazy Horse, and the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:23 PM

Lots of good information there. Lovely. Nice documentation. So...has anyone "won" yet? ;-)

There are several little details in your post that I could dispute, Teribus, but I don't really care. We all have the same basic understanding of what happened at the battle of LBH, and to carp at each other over minor points is nothing more than an exercise in....

the need to win

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:44 PM

"Fox and others went over the Custer site with metal detectors, finding shell casings and fired bullets to arrive at this list."

"The arrows used were all metal tipped."

They cannot make that second statement with any degree of certainty, If they went looking with a metal detector all they would find would be metal tipped arrows.

Otherwise what is said is of no great variance to what has already been said. SRS's "starting point" gives a far more detailed breakdown of the weapons used on each side, including the weapon return registers of Crazy Horse's band. The 1873 Model Springfield was sighted in somewhere between 500 and 600 yards. It's Maximum Effective Range (2% change of causing material damage) was 1000 yards. The Repeating rifles that the Indians had were said to be good for 250 yards and difficult to reload.

From what you have posted no credance at all seems to have been given to Reno or Reno's men's statements regarding their rifles jamming. Subsequent to the action the 4th Cavalry which relieved the 7th insisted on being equipped with Repeating rifles because of the lack of confidence the troopers had in the Springfield.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:13 PM

Sorry 'bout that, but the evidence simply doesn't back what the troopers said. I suggest you read the book -- and remember that the statements were taken after the battle from soldiers trying to explain or excuse their defeat. Later statements, by Gall, Rain-in-the-face, White Bull, and others were very possibly "telling the interviewers what they wanted to hear" -- something that is not at all unknown even today.

Here's another extract from the book (p. 253) -- it will be my last word on this particular subject:

...the repeaters as an instrument of shcok, coupled with the liability of the single-shot carbine in close-in fighting, probably contributed significantly to the demoralization among the right-wing men and, ultimately, to the entire battalion. The shock effect was magnified by the likelihood, based on archaeological data, that the Indians has at least 200 repeating rifles. (Emphasis mine.)

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM

He doesn't want to read the book, Rap. ;-) He wants to win the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 05:27 PM

No one has yet mentioned Custer's reputed last words.
Please forgive the accent
" I just dont understand it, all those chaps were singing and dancing last night "
I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong? :<}>
Keep up he good work folks

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:13 PM

Paternalistic is exactly what I meant. Treating the people you're discussing as if they are "childlike" situates you in a paternal position. My html was to get your attention, and my cursing was because you deserved it and I felt like it.

By the way, I stopped at that paragraph, I don't have time for your nonsense. I'm not reading any more of your posts, Teribus, so if you're writing for my benefit you're wasting your time. Your sources are not very good and your reasoning is nonexistent. Go waste somebody else's time.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:23 PM

Kenny, Custer's last words were actually, "Holy f*****g sh*t! Where'd all them Indians come from?"

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 08:14 PM

He probably said something a bit like that, all right. ;-)

In moments of extreme emergency "Shit!" is the most common expletive used by far, and this is confirmed by black box recordings from airplane crashes.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:27 PM

Shambles and Teribus - the Terrible Twins of Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:29 PM

This just in: Custer's last last words were "Ouch! Ouch! Oowee!"

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:44 AM

OK, Stilly's reason for cursing is settled.........but Teribus never explained why he was using bad words?

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 03:08 AM

But what about Errol Flynn's willy?

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 04:44 AM

we haven't got on to that yet.....we'working up to it, saving it for after lunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:52 AM

see I told you we'd start dicking about after lunch....

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:17 AM

"Go back through the postings on this thread and show me where I have made any 'ad hominen' attack on anyone posting to this thread."

I don't remember saying that about either of The Terrible Twins!

But both are like a dog with a bone - both will worry it to death, and both will tend to bore stupid anyone within earshot who just wanted to have a light pleasant conversation, and maybe learn something. Shambles carries on about matters of 'opinion', Teribus about matters of 'fact'.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:27 PM

LOL! What fun to read all those ad hominem attacks on Teribus again. Thank you for copying and pasting them, Teribus. I stand by most of mine, but I guess I should really not have said I "detest" you. That was insensitive. I admit that there are moments when I detest you, but mostly I am just irritated by you, so pardon me for having gone a bit too far that time.

By the way, I also mentioned that you could "bore the balls off a buffalo" somewhere back there...and I think it's worth being included on your list.

Foolestroupe's example of the similarity between your behaviour and that of Shambles' is right on the mark. You should print it out and attach it to your monitor as a reminder.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:47 PM

ah yes the spirit of Thomas Gradgrind

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 04:15 PM

But what about Errol Flynn's Willy? Was he killed with Custer? And if so, how did he ever meet Errol Flynn? And what, exactly, was the relationship between Errol Flynn and "his Willy"? And what was Willy's last name?

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 04:31 PM

I don't know the answer to your questions, Rap but I do know they traveled together. Make of that what you will.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 04:57 PM

"So the bay is only kept for recreational purposes, thought so, grass would for him, as a cavalry mount in Spain during the peninsular war he wouldn't have lasted one month the way you treat him."

Well you "thought" wrong Teribus, but then when has any deep thought entered into your assumptions. LOL! That bay you summarily dismissed just because I rode it, was not my own horse, nor was he a recreational mount. That particular thrifty animal earned his living week after week, at elevations and on terrain that would cripple or kill the average recreational lawn ornament in a day.

Be assured, that working pony was as tough and fit for his job as any of his ancestors, whether from the realm of the Hun, the peninsula of Spain or eventually full circle back to the Americas. Any horse that multiplied in the wild on this continent, that was not tough, of relatively small stature and also of prime importance, of a very efficient metabolism, did not survive the rigors of predation by wolves, grizzly and cougar, nor the regular onslaught of summer fire and winter blizzard.

The term "arrogant prat" is not meaningless, Teribus.

arrogant - making or implying unwarrantable claims to dignity, authority, or knowledge; aggressively conceited or haughty, or overbearing.

prat - one who behaves in an unintelligent way, especially when this causes exasperation or leads to time wasting.

That said, I apologize to you for calling you an arrogant prat. It would have been more appropriate on my part to have posted that the general tenure of your ideas, implied a claim to authority or knowledge in an aggressively conceited, haughty and overbearing manner, that is of a most exasperating and time wasting nature. However, feel free to call me the same if you wish . LOL Now regarding your use of the "F" word twice in a post directed at me.......hmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 05:23 PM

Teribus, the horses used by the American Indians were and are well known for their stamina and all-around toughness. And they ate grass pretty much exclusively during Spring, Summer and Fall. During the Winter they ate what they could get, including tree bark.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:17 PM

Thanks Rapaire, that's it in a nutshell. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:00 PM

Nah, it's just that I see 'em all the time out on the Sho-Ban Rez. Danged good horseflesh as a rule. And I know what the old timers said about Indian horses.

Cowboy horses were treated pretty much the same, only in the Winter they might eat hay cut from the wild grasses. Oats and other grains were very much sometime things.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:02 PM

The most natural food for horses IS grass, is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:05 PM

probably is for us too, but I bet its a bit unsatisfactory

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:07 PM

Prairie grasses fed herds of millions of buffalo, antelope and other critters. They also fed lots of cattle and, in some cases, still do. The grasses are very nutritious.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:43 PM

Your Horses Metchosin and Rapaire - in Spain they would not have lasted one month. Now ask yourself the question, and I don't give a damn if you answer it her on this forum. Why was the wealth of a man counted by the number of horses he had? - Because he needed them. They had fuck all stamina, the Indian brave had to change horses many many times provided he had them, that is why the number was so important.

Now remember that they carried only a fraction of the weight a troopers horse would carry - for a troop of cavalry how many remounts used to accompany a cavalry patrol. Hint None.

Left to eat the grass he does Metchosin your horse would be blown in one day if you actually put him to work.

My last word on this thread goes to Metchosin, Stilly River Sage and to Little Hawk, who have proved that they are entirely incapable of carrying on a conversation outwith fawning sycophancy - the lot of you can go fuck yourselves. You are without doubt the most pig ignorant bunch of bastards that I have ever had the misfortune to come across.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:09 PM

I hope you routinely soap out your mouth, Teribus. Your mother didn't teach you to speak that way to women or to wise and gentle souls.

Not on subject but your talk about horses made me think of this song:

Scatter My Ashes
Buddy Tabor, Juneau, Alaska

A cowboy lay dying, his day almost done
He'd spent all his life 'neath Nevada's hot sun
His friends grouped about him to tell him goodbye
But his soft final words made them tough cowboys cry:

Won't you scatter my ashes where the mustangs run free
Them wild running horses mean freedom to me
Tear down your fences and let them herds be
Them wild running horses mean freedom to me.

In the sweet smell of sagebrush after a summer storm
Way up in Black Canyon them wild colts were born
But he never did chase them; it wasn't his style
And whenever he saw them it brought him a smile

Won't you scatter my ashes where the mustangs run free
Them wild running horses mean freedom to me
Tear down your fences and let them herds be
And whenever you see them, won't you please think of me

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:13 PM

look you two want to argue about bloody crap that nobody bothered writing down at the time, cos nobody gave a sod even then - form your own thread.

this is my thread and its about Errol Flynn's willy

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:40 PM

LWD, your thread?

Ebbie, up until my post of 15 Apr 06 - 08:43 PM I had treated everybody on this thread with the utmost respect. Foolestroupe called me to task without justification, and now you have on the strength of just one post. Where was your self righteous indignation during the ten posts personally attacking me. If those responsible deem that that is the way that discourse and discussion are carried on on this Forum then so be it, those individuals will find out that in those terms I can give as good as I get.

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:19 PM

weelittledrummer

I agree, there's been too distraction on this thread - I think it's hish time that we all sunk our teeth into Rrrols Flynn's willy!


ooooooo, er, ah... did I say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:36 PM

You just don't get it, Teribus. It is your obsessive need to argue with people endlessly and pedantically and go on and on and on and on about it at such incredible length trying to prove you are RIGHT and they are WRONG...it is that which eventually makes people angry enough that they start getting rude with you. It is simply beyond most people's endurance after awhile. You are an unusual case in that regard.

How many other people would receive the sort of response you have gotten from myself, Stilly, Foolestroupe, Mechosin, and various others? How many others get that sort of a response from us? Virtually none.

Doesn't that make you suspect it just might have something to do with you, not us?

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:56 PM

Indeed there is also a similarity between Teribus and the infamous MG of being unable to back off and quieten down once they step on somebody's toes....

Subject: RE: BS: Errol Flynn's willy and General Custer
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 01:56 AM

Teribus, you are a fool. You want to argue fine points with scholars who have the background and the resources and citations to either remember or to look up and report facts regarding the battle in question.

There can be various interpretations of any given event like this, but we're basing our conversation on the numerous accounts that we have read and the further research by natives, historians, and archaeologists in the field. The nonsense you're shoveling into the discussion has nothing to do with anything except your misinformation from who-knows-where and, as Little Hawk has observed, an obsessive need to be right even when you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

You owe everyone here several apologies, but I for one won't be holding my breath waiting for them.

SRS