BS: No poppies for me

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 07:01 AM

Jim - Sorry, sir, but you've got no fucking idea what you are talking about. Try picking up a copy of Tigers In The Mud, for example. Otto Carius, one of Germany's top scoring tank aces of WWII, thought he was fighting a war in defence of his country. Even though practically everyone in the modern world, including the Germans, would say that Germany was the aggressor.

If you view history only in terms of your own narrow-minded, limited world view, you understand neither history, nor the people that lived then, nor why they did what they did.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 07:24 AM

Er, actually, Raedwulf, Jim didn't say that about WW2, did he? The only comment about that was that it was avoidable. You rushed in a bit in the quick side there.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: gnu
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 07:57 AM

Uncle Chic

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 08:01 AM

News just in... well about an hour ago actually..

I was enjoying a steak pie.. BBC News channel on permanently as default background sound..

I looked up to see a female presenter finish her item to camera with..

"and.. apologies for not wearing a poppy, I had one, but it fell off as I ran down the stairs in a rush to get on camera...."

so.. yet more example of the climate of fear of narrow minded bullying social media vilification & attacks
that BBC news personalities endure as part of modern day working conditions... 😣



..and on a personal note..

I've already stated I don't do jewellry, ornamentation or tattoos..

but it has occurred how positive it would be if I was ever cornered by a noxious loud mouth poppy bully..

" oi you bolshy lefty weirdo.. why aint you wearing a poppy like all us decent god fearing queen and country loving normal people..!!!???"

to just open my shirt to reveal a tasteful respectful poppy tattooed permanently over my heart.... 😎

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 08:41 AM

"but it has occurred how positive it would be if I was ever cornered by a noxious loud mouth poppy bully..

" oi you bolshy lefty weirdo.. why aint you wearing a poppy like all us decent god fearing queen and country loving normal people..!!!???"

I'm not a 'noxious loud-mouth poppy bully' - I'm none of those things. I wear a poppy because I choose to, I make no comment about others' choices.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:17 AM

Yeah.. I know.. that's why I distinctly distinguish between sound good mates like you
and the noxious daily mail / sun bonehead poppy bullies who think they own and run [oh.. they do..???] society..

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:19 AM

.. because for you and me both.. it's an issue of personal freedom of choice how we express what's important to us...

and bollocks to all the intolerant bullies....

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:30 AM

What intolerant bullies?
What abuse have you suffered for not wearing a poppy?
I put one on for the first time today, buying it at the hospital reception.
Many if not most of the hundreds there were not wearing one.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:44 AM

g'dafternoon Keith... ever heard of social media...???

I'm off to hospital meself now...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:47 AM

Ever heard of infection in a hospital professor, I would suggest the staff are not allowed to wear them.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:06 AM

Because we do not encounter something ourselves does not mean it doesn't exist. I never encountered any complaints when I used to black up for our pace egg play but I stopped doing that when I heard it could be offensive to some. Back to the point in question

Poppy bullying.

Trying to ensure that this does not end in an endless tirade of 'my sources are better than yours' I will state now that this is the only link I will post and I will not respond to requests for further information

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:10 AM

Sorry - forgot about the limited number of character on the Mudcat link maker.

I'll try again.

Poppy bullying.

Hope that is better.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:11 AM

Looks like the poppy bullies removed that page, Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:35 AM

I have accasionally been told I'm 'celebrating', or 'glorifying' war by wearing a poppy, but I've found that, if my explanation as to what the poppy means to me personally doesn't get the critic out of my face, a friendly invitation to 'fuck off and mind your own business' usually does the trick.

It's a rare occurrence though, far less frequent than the exhortations from the 'you're a traitor if you don't' brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 11:53 AM

Dave, that is not a "source" of anything, just someone expressing their opinion as we are doing here.
Do we not have enough between us?

PFR how do they know on social media if you wear a poppy in order to abuse you.
Do you need to heed it?
Sorry, but you speak as if you are being somehow heroic by not wearing one.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:04 PM

From the linked article.

Last weekend, Irish footballer James McClean maintained his refusal to wear the poppy. In his eyes, wearing the poppy would disrespect the people who died on Bloody Sunday. Indeed, the 2010 Saville Report itself concluded that British paratroopers shot and killed fleeing unarmed civilians.

So, was McClean respected for his well-reasoned opinion? What do you think? A Twitter-storm soon ensued as the player was branded as "scum of the highest order", "a terrorist sympathiser" and it was recommended that he should be put in a "hole full of rats". Basically, lovely comments from the ever-understanding British public, all good-hearted people who just want to do something nice for our fallen heroes.

No opinions. Just well evidenced fact.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:24 PM

"In his eyes, wearing the poppy would disrespect the people who died on Bloody Sunday."

Cannot for the life of me see how. The poppy has got nothing whatsoever to do with any branch of the armed forces of the United Kingdom. The poppy is worn to remember those, both military and civilian, who gave their lives for their country.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:28 PM

And it's nothing to do with you or anyone else whether he wears one or not.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:38 PM

Quite right Shaw - Not in the least interested in whether he wears one or not. If however he is going to go into print and give reasons then he can expect those reasons to be commented on, which is all I have done. Perhaps you could point out exactly where I make even the remotest effort to tell him that he should wear a poppy?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:40 PM

He was asked to explain. Poppy-wearers are not asked to explain.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:44 PM

Irrelevant see Backwoodsman - 11 Nov 16 - 10:35 AM for guidance.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:07 PM

Hello keith.. I'm back from the hospital

"How are you punkfollkrocker ?"

"Alright, thanks for asking.. hearing test results are not too bad for a guitar basher of my age...

... and tests for being a 'hero' are negative..
though I may be afflicted by symptoms of humility, anti-heroism, and sarcasm which require further tests...???".... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:19 PM

"Sorry, sir, but you've got no fucking idea what you are talking about."
In that case, I'd better change my mind!!
When you address the points I* have made, that is.
Let's try them one by one.
It was a war between Empires - the name it was given at the time and the name of the museum that commemorates it gives it away.
Answers on a postcard will do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:32 PM

By the way,
a "narrow-minded, limited world view" is an oxymoron.
narrow-minded, limited national view maybe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:34 PM

.. another thought for this sombre day.

Poppy wearers of true heart deserve respect,
same goes for poppy unwearers who share the universal sentiment for remembering & honouring war dead...

Sadly the proud symbol of the poppy is becoming corrupted and debased / politicised and weaponised by the intolerance of bonehead reactionary arseholes... 😣

oh.. btw.. I counted one poppy wearer in Hospital ENT dept today,
which considering there were mostly elderly patients in the queue
did come as a bit of a surprise.
I'd have expected more from that senior age group... ???

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 01:45 PM

Steve - The WW2 book was the one that sprang to mind first, particularly given previous comments (not just on the cat, it's happened elsewhere) about not remembering other nations' dead, especially enemy dead. My comment remains equally applicable to WWI. The "bloodbath" of WWI" was never "squabbling between empires" and etcetera, and assuming that people in history thought the same way we do now will mean you never understand why what happened happened. Especially where WWI is concerned!

Apologies to Jim if he finds my assertion a bit on the strong side, but that is how I found his remark that I was replying to. Jim, I've read your contribution on the Open thread, and I thank you for sharing it. By the time I started taking an interest in WWI, there weren't many veterans left, and I've never spoken to someone that was there (and never will, given that they've all gone now). I have read an awful lot of eyewitness accounts of one sort or another, though. If I started naming names, I'd be here for a while! But what you wrote... Nah, sorry. Your opinion is your opinion. And perhaps it's influenced by your Grandad's (I hope those tapes make it into the IWM collection!). But they're still only one man's opinion, just as the modern view that poppies & Remembrance are glorifying war are not shared by everyone. If you see what I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 02:07 PM

I don't accuse the poor old poppy of glorifying war. It was never meant to be that, and still isn't, quite. If the poppy is truly and purely to be a symbol for remembrance of all war dead, civilian and military, the world over, recognising that all the dead couldn't help being born where they were or, in very large part, what side they were on, then we need to strip away the "our boys," the "died for king and country," the proud cascading of medals on the breasts of generals and princes, the military parades, the fly-pasts, the cannon salutes, the marching in step and all the rest of the ceremonial stuff that's supposed to make us think that being shot to pieces then being left to rot in a field of mud is "noble." It's a rotten failure, and the people who lead the parades and make the fine speeches, the dukes, the politicians and the generals are the people who best represent those who perpetrated that failure. Lest we forget.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 02:07 PM

Whether anyone's opinion is right or wrong is irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a simple matter of fact that the footballer in question was abused for not wearing a poppy. The whole point of the thread is that some people feel that the poppy symbol has become politicised and there is, in the words of the article I linked, a 'poppy facism' that is a genuine concern for some people. To dismiss that as not being factual is wrong as is proven by the link I provided.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 02:30 PM

Raed
As you say - opinions are opinions.
I am no expert of WW1 - I approach it as a humanitarian rather than someone with a deep knowledge of history.
However, I am fascinated by the social history of the latter half of the 19th and first half of the twentieth century.
The book that knocked my socks off is entitled 'The Kings Depart', by Richard M Watt, basically a history of the period from the end of the war to the rise of Nazism in Germany - by a non-historian journalist, and probably because of that, highly readable (still available from the Book Depository, last time I looked).
What I came to believe after reading it was how easy it would have been for British and German soldiers to say, "Look lads, this has **** all to do with us and whoever wins, none of us are going to gat anything out of it".
This was the line taken by the radical socialist parties and if it had been followed, go count how many lives could have been saved.
Russia kicked out the leaders who sent them to war - Germany came within a hairs-breadth of doing the same.
Whatever happened or might have happened later in both is beside the point - at least we wouldn't be 'celebrating the deaths of so many young men today.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 03:48 PM

Dave, no-one has argued in favour of bullying non wearers.
I would deplore it.
I suppose that people in the public eye are expected to wear one, but it is only social pressure.
Like wearing a tie used to be.
Peston gets a lot of criticism over his appearance on TV.
Just social pressure to conform. Why should your socks match?

I thought you meant your link to support the non-wearing argument, because that what it was mostly about.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 04:06 PM

Steve, is the footballer you refer to in your opening post the one that is discussed in the article I linked? If so, can we assume that the discussion is mostly about the so called 'poppy facism' that you mention and the article confirms? That being the case I understand your POV that you will not wear a poppy as a protest against both the politicisation of the poppy symbol and as a protest against the undure pressure put on those in the public eye? I am more than happy to be told I am wrong on any of the counts and, if so, sorry for misunderstanding the sentiments.

There are many reasons to wear or not wear the poppy. If I understand Steve correctly his reason is as I just described. The footballers reason whether some consider it valid or not, is a different one. My reason is the ambivalence I have about it. It is easier just to buy one and, as I have this year, stick it on a picture of my Grandsons as a stark reminder of why it must never happen again. Whatever the reason though, to stoop to the lengths that some do on social media and, even worse, in real life, to bring pressure to bear on someone to wear one is something we must not put up with. To say that pressure is 'just social' trivialises the trauma felt by those who have been subjected to this type of bullying that has, on occasion, cost people their lives.

I am sure none of the brave men who paid the ultimate sacrifice would want this type of politicisation or bullying in their name. But that is only my opinion of course.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 05:32 PM

Jim - well I'm glad I didn't upset you too much! :-) The fascination with that period of history, for me, is precisely because of... Well. Once you've got to 1900, you've got something that looks like the modern world. The infernal combustion has been invented. The aeroplane will turn up shortly. Electric lighting, telephone, and "wireless" are all starting to have an impact...

Yet the social structure remains a monolith. Yes, there is agitation for change; not just Marx, Engels, et al, but organised labour starting to flex muscles. And don't necessarily think unions here - the striking London matchgirls (pun pretty much unavoidable!) in 1888, who worked for Bryant & May, springs to mind. It's WWI that actually is the mortal wound to the old social system.

Partly because of the (slightly mythical) lost generation. A lot of people who sneer about the upper classes, the generals, etc, don't seem to realise that it was the "gentlemen" who suffered most. Officers led from the front, and died in disproportionate numbers. Because "the done thing" was more ingrained into them than anyone else. The "public schoolboys" of whom we now speak contemptuously were already in the army as officers, or joined up, became officers, and... died... There went the "assumed / presumed" leadership of the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years.

Partly, of course, it's because WWI was an enormous leveller. So many of the "underclasses" came back from the war knowing that, actually, they were just as good as those they had always thought of, automatically, as their superiors. And that's the mistake that so many "moderns" make, hence my "especially WWI!" earlier.

"How could they..." "Why did they..." WWI was the break point, the fault line. There, the old social system suddenly fractures, and therein lies the problem. From the 50's onwards, people have viewed it as a modern world. From outside the head, it is; from inside the head it isn't. If you see what I mean. And a whole generation of bad history, the 50's to 70's, has created a huge amount of myth around WWI that is difficult to shift. I'm no John Terraine (apologist for the generals), but Alan Clark MP did admit that the "Lions led by Donkeys" thing was something he simply made up. Yet it's taken as gospel!

Anyway, thank you for the book recommendation. Available cheaply through A Certain e-vendor, 'tis added to the wish list. Three from me that all deal with the lead up to WWI. Dreadnought, by Robert Massie, which isn't simply about the Naval arms race; far from it. The Proud Tower, by Barbara Tuchman. She is a bit journalistic & her scholarship has been called into question. And Royal Sunset by Gordon Brook-Shepherd is definitely journalistic - he was one for the Torygraph, if memory serves. The last is out of print (try getting it from the library) but all offer a somewhat sideways view of the run-up to the war and, therefore, offer a different perspective, in different ways.

For eyewitness (what? You thought three meant "only three"? ;-) ) Overtones of War by Edmund Blunden, one of the less well known war poets. And anything by Richard van Emden. He is less an author than an editor - he speaks sparingly & lets his eyewitness speak. I can only wonder what he might have done with your Grandad's tapes...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 06:01 PM

"Steve, is the footballer you refer to in your opening post the one that is discussed in the article I linked? If so, can we assume that the discussion is mostly about the so called 'poppy facism' that you mention and the article confirms? That being the case I understand your POV that you will not wear a poppy as a protest against both the politicisation of the poppy symbol and as a protest against the undure pressure put on those in the public eye? I am more than happy to be told I am wrong on any of the counts and, if so, sorry for misunderstanding the sentiments."

Yep, that's the man. Poppy fascism is indeed what prompted me to start the thread. But I'm not refusing to wear a poppy because I'm protesting. I'm fine with people wearing poppies. But I'm personally not in sync with the sentiments behind the kind of "remembrance" we indulge in in this country, for the reasons I've outlined in other posts in this thread. I'm not even THAT bothered about the tabloidistic idiots who question why somebody has been seen without a poppy, or who get all hoity-toity with FIFA about it just because FIFA sucks anyway, which of course it does (though even a stopped clock is dead right twice a day). If you go around observing and vilifying non-poppy-wearers, you have a mental problem as far as I'm concerned. You probably voted brexit, still mourn Thatcher, regard Prince Philip as your guru and love Trump too, you poor sausage. It's a free country. Nobody bothers you if you wear a poppy. It would be nice if nobody bothered people who don't.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 06:23 PM

On the plus side, Steve, no-one has ever bothered me for not wearing a poppy. Mind you, I probably look about how I argue... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 06:26 PM

But then you've never played footie for Ireland, been on the Graham Norton Show nor been Jeremy Corbyn.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 07:25 PM

"no-one has ever bothered me for not wearing a poppy"
Steve has the right of it Raed - if you are a public figure and don't wear a poppy you are castigated by the media and the refusal to wear one becomes a political weapon
The fact that this has now become an issue is proof enough of the pressure to wear one.
I most certainly do not agree with you that officers suffered most, nor do I agree with you that WW1 was a leveller - again, on the contrary, the conditions the survivors (that words speaks volumes) returned to for a short period, but by the end of the 20s, conditions had plummeted below what they were at the beginning of the century.
Class division accelerated during WW2 - those workers that weren't fighting suffered wartime conditions and slept in shelters while the better off dodged the worse effects and, when things got too hot, moved out of the danger areas or sailed to America:

"The rich men's families sailed away
While the refugees slept in Berkeley Square"

as the song says.   
At the end of WW"2 the new Labour Government improved the conditions immensely despite vehement opposition and at the first opportunity, those improvements were dismantled.
What were we fighting and suffering for?
The establishment appeased fascism right up to the point they were given no alternative and anybody who attempted to oppose its rise were treated as criminals
Again a repetition - but you seem to have not been around for previous argument.
My family took to the streets to oppose Mosely - they fought the police who protected him and his scum as well as the Blackshirts.
My grandmother was arrested for throwing a stone and hitting Mosely in Liverpool - still a matter of pride in my family.
My father saw what was happening in Germany and volunteered to fight in Spain to stop the rise of fascism.
He was wounded and imprisoned and when he returned home in 1939 he found he had an MI5 record as a "premature anti-fascist", he was blacklisted from work and forced to take to the road as a navvy - my sister and I didn't see him for longer than a week-end until I was about 10.
He was excommunicated from his religion as well - but that was a favour rather than a punishment.
If we were fighting for something in these wars, you'll have to tell us what.
At least the German and the Russian People attempted to do something about it.
Our history is one of fighting wars for the benefit of others - it really is time we stopped doing so.
It certainly is time that remembrance ceremonies became more than the lip-service to the dead that they are now.
We live in Ireland now - I've been staggered this year at the 100th anniversary of Easter Week, which has lasted nearly a year and so far has been the most inspiring and educational period of my life since I left school - no glorification, no self-congratulatory back-patting, no outpourings of hate - but an in-depth self-critical look at Ireland's most important achievement - warts and all.
That's the way these things should be treated - not the gathering of the great and the good around the cenotaph - then back to business as usual in Syria and Afghanistan and arms sales and throwing out Johnny Foreigner....
What did we win as "ordinary people" through sacrificing our loved ones (I lost a grandfather in WW1 - so did my wife - we seem as deep in the sit as our partents and grandparents were?
Sorry to hear you can't get Watt's book - try the libray - it really is a unique study.
Amazon UK have a couple of used copies at nonsensically low prices
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:40 AM

So the school that lost the highest percentage of its pupils in the First World War wasn't Eton College then Carroll? Perhaps you should write and tell them that.

As for fatality rates in combat units.

Officers 1 in 17 died
NCOs & Other Ranks 1 in 33 died.

As far as your ability to read and understand history goes Raedwulf has got you weighed off perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:47 AM

Now give us the overall numbers. Lies, damned lies and...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 08:37 AM

"So the school that lost the highest percentage of its pupils in the First World War wasn't Eton College then Carroll
What the **** has that gotto do twith the fact that the ast majority who died were of the rank and file, who were always the first to go over the top.
"Now give us the overall numbers. Lies, damned lies and..."
Wouldn't work for this jingoist
For the record 666,000 thousand other ranks died compared to 44,000 officers
"Raedwulf has got you weighed off perfectly."
Yeah - course he has -
Nice feller as he seems to be, if you examine what he has to say, he is using arguments that you were putting forward a year ago which were long blown out of the water.
You failed to convince then - I doubt if he will now, but no harm in your attempting to use him as a grasped straw - entertainment makes the world go round, as they say.
"Carroll"
Feeling a little insecure today, are we?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 10:46 AM

Teribus - please don't quote me when all you want to do is be nasty. Jim & Steve & I are having a perfectly civil discussion. We don't need you weighing in with typical invective, thank you. Especially, I don't need you using me to validate your narrow-minded authority. Yes, you are often right (not always, despite what you think). But the one thing you've never managed to fucking understand is that it is better to get your point across than to be abrasively right. If the other side doesn't agree, it is still better that they understand your point of view, than that you can sit there in smug isolated righteousness. For an intelligent & knowledgeable man, you are, all too often, remarkably stupid & blind.

Jim (& Steve) - reply (ies) noted. I will get back to you. For various reasons (alcohol may be involved) not today! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 05:29 PM

Raedwulf - Right is right and wrong is wrong.

As someone who declares that you are a specialist in the particular period of history covering the First World War you were strangely silent while Carroll and the rest of the "usual suspects" were mangling history right, left and centre.

Across a massive swathe of history Carroll has shown that he hasn't got the foggiest notion of what happened or why what happened did happen. He has proven beyond a doubt that he is a complete and utter ignoramus whose thinking process is restricted and bound by his own warped politics.

If you do not wish to be quoted then I would advise you not to post you overly precious prick.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 06:47 PM

Funny how often you manage to make right sound wrong, though. And that's when you are right. I never "declared" that I was a "specialist", shit for brains. I said it was a particular interest. I'm merely a history buff, not a professional, not a historian, no degrees to my name. What are your qualifications, Mr "I'm Always Right, How Dare You Argue With Me!"? Oh, and whilst you're busy sneering & name-calling (yes, I'm joining in, childish isn't it? But I recognise that. Do you?), permit me to remind you that I have not only agreed with you in the past, I've actually spoken up for you as well, cos you are, at times, put upon unfairly. On the other hand, you're also an abrasive, antagonistic, smug, self-righteous **** who never admits he is wrong about anything.

As for Jim (hello Jim!), I can have a civil discussion with Jim. We can agree to disagree. And I'm not usually here very much. I never knew it was compulsory. So my "silence" is hardly "strange". Oh. Wait. It must be, because Teribus is never, ever wrong. About anything.

You have frequently proven that you can't see fog, and as for "restricted and bound by his own warped"... I really am just ROFLMFAO. You have often brought light into Mudcat threads. But you have never learnt, are never going to learn, that you can do that with a candle. Or a lantern. Nah. You have to throw a flash grenade. Or napalm. You'd rather sit there in your smug, isolated, not always right righteousness, than actually get your point across.

More fool you. How many people have advised you not to post down the years, I wonder? Quite obviously you've never listened to their advice, so why should anyone listen to yours?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:24 PM

He certainly seems to have been advised not to post in the music section.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:01 AM

"who never admits he is wrong about anything." Raedwulf??

Perhaps you should ask Akenaton, Raggytash and Joe Offer about that - Anytime where it has been pointed out that I am in error I have admitted it and apologised for that error (If memory serves me correctly the last occasion had something to do with the term Field General Court Martial - a term not used or applicable in the Royal Navy).

Generally however in debate on historical matters with Carroll and the "usual suspects" more often than not I am in the right - something bourn out by the fact that they never seem to be able to counter anything I have stated with facts of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:06 AM

By the bye, the only people who have ever suggested that I do not post have been the likes of Carroll and the "usual suspects" normally when they have made complete and utter fools of themselves - certainly no Moderator on this forum has ever made the request.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:32 AM

With regard to a Field General Court Martial I recall you told me I was talking through my anal orifice. I also seem to recall that it was only with the intervention of a moderator that you accepted they did actually exist. This of course was after several days and numerous bad tempered, belligerent and aggressive posts.

You have still to admit that Cork is on the South and not the East coast of Ireland despite being presented with a map complete with compass bearing nicely displayed on it.

So much for admitting your mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 06:15 AM

"more often than not I am in the right"
Sure you are Terri - that's why you disappear into isolation when you are faced with awkward questions
Your "rightness" usually includes your denying proof and expert statements and refusing to provide any of your own.
There's a medical term for people who always behave like that.
You have never ever won over a thread to your side and you basically have three supporters - all of them strange and dishonest people - and all of the extremely to the right, - racist, fascist, Islamophobic and jingoistic
Then perhaps I am misuderstand your use of the term RIGHT
Hi Raed - how's the head?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:01 AM

Your recollection as usual is wrong Raggy.

Joe Offer posting as a forum member - Not as a moderator - pointed out my error on the 09 May 16 at 03:19 AM. I apologised to both him and you on the same day within hours if not minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:15 AM

So the fact that I said such a thing as the Field General Court Martial did exist managed to creep past you did it.

I seem to recall your utter belligerence over an extended period before Joe popped up in support, then and only then, when a known moderator was involved did you finally concede that you were mistaken.

To me it was a fine example of you kow-towing to "authority"...... No surprise there really.

Still no mention of the position of Cork on the coast of Ireland I see.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:35 PM

That your way of saying that you did not have to wait days after the error had been pointed out to me Raggy.

Now give us the context of the "Cork" thing Raggy. A port serving the east coast of Ireland - think we were talking about transport links in the mid 1800s - the question you and your pals could not answer was how food could be distributed without the transport, roads, storage facilities. You were given maps showing the areas served by the port of Cork - they supported my argument and made a nonsense of yours.

Same thing happened when you tried to claim that conscription was introduced before March 1916.