"Anatomy of a lie" Topic

Thank you for the support, Armand. As you can see, I made NO comment about anyone and yet I am again harrassed by Mr. Devries. I politely asked him to stop and he still continues with his harassement.

I found this a very interesting topic, well presented.

Again, thank you,

Big Al

"TMP is a gaming board."
I thoguth there were 2 Boards here : "Discussion" and "History" with different purposes. Yes ? No ?

"The Victrix Old Guard thread"
This was a mistake. I added a bunch of "detail-instesive" and attitude-laden comments to the wrong thread and wrong board.
I thought I was still on the "History" board, but was repsondinging in fact to a question on the "Discussion" board. When taken to task for this on the "Victrix Old Guard thread", I apologized and thanked the person who pointed out my error. I apologize again here.

"confine their erudition to the Napoleonic History board"
Right, that's what it is there for. Again, my mistake to have hit the wrong board – now apologized for twice.

"Well that is the tactic of the ignorants"
The writer is NOT a native English speaker. Secondly, he is NOT referring to any gamers of any sort.
He is referring specifically to "10th Marines", who is a published author of several books and who contributes here for I-don't-know-what-reason. In a more general way, as NSN wrote, the comment it is "directed at those who would argue the point by tossing in someone else's bibliography that they did not actually read.". It general, the comment is directed against sloppy, derivative and often very misleading research in general. I share this negative view of biased, agenda-driven and/or incompetent research.

"Perhaps the 'academics' could do us all a favour and return whence they came."
It's hard for me …. I was a gamer long before I was even a little acaedmic. I think I sobered up briefly in college a couple of times …. but it is hard to recall, of course. I really wish I could paint better. Anyway – I am passionate about both gaming and history. But not which side "wins" (I play both Russian and French, for example – even though I am an American of mostly English and Scots heritage), just that each is done well. Fun games + accurate, un-biased history. I would add beautiful painting if I wasn't so imcompentent.

That's one reason I like TMP. It has both gaming + history. Nap-Series doesn't. Also, Nap-Series is too tightly moderated for my taste (I like free speech) and it is more Anglo-centric (Peninsula+Waterloo, and North American War fo 1812) than TMP. Also, I would say that the Nap-Series moderators, while generally equally heavy handed, are occasionally somewhat biased pro-French (in line with their founders and sponsors).

I started the thread "Anatomy of a lie" on the History board to (i) examine the performance of the Old Guard at Eylau (did they really perform a great feat of arms or not?) and (ii) to trace the effect of Napoléon's propaganda machine on later writers, and our view of the events today. Included in the "our" could be gamers, rules-writers and modern authors of books purporting to tell us about history. I do not think these questions are too "detailed" – but rather broad. However, some details naturally cropped up in the discussion.

"left the forum because they had suffered agressive comments about their threads"
Please, Armand, tell me that I was not guilty of such a thing. I think I am only aggressive when fact-based posting seems to have no effect on bias, ignorance, prejudice and unreason.

Chuvak

P.S. – I am not an author, not an academic and don't publish books. If the authors and academics could just do a decent job of it, then I would not even bother to question and fact-check them.
I was a happily retired former businessman and was reading/gaming nearly full time until a little while ago when I was persuaded to come out of retirement.

You'll note that most other periods in TMP don't have a separate History board. That is indicative of the poor form of many Napoloenic academic discussions on TMP, which had to be shunted from the main Napoleonic discussion board because of their visciousness. This does not reflect well on the Napoleonic side of the hobby, and there should really be no need for a separate board.

Having two boards, though, is no excuse for boorish behaviour to continue on either of them. Several people here obviously disagree with with Kevin Kiley and/or his methods (which seems to be the nub of all these arguments from time immemorial). Well, just state your points and then leave it. Kevin can choose to respond in a likewise manner. There is no need to turn it into personal attacks or to use sarcasm.

Arteis,

you hit the nail right on the head, it seems that no matter what Kevin says his detractors seem to come out of the woodwork almost immediately to criticise, insult and attack him. Instead of debating the argument and focusing on topic they digress to personal insult and attack. Then someone like yourself tries to point this behaviour out and by merely sticking your head up you get shot at by the usual suspects who then cry harassment.

I find that so amusing and laughable. I am guessing they think Bill is blind to what they are attempting. you see this in the animal kingdom, the pack goes in for the kill, they maul and slaughter their kill while several pack members stand guard on the fringes to ensure other predators do not come in to help the wounded or steal the kill.

This discussion board has been a focus point for attack and insult since it was added. At first I thought it would keep the aggressors away from the traditional board but always on the prowl for a good fight they spill onto the gaming discussion board constantly to cause fights and insult and if you speak out about it you become the prey.

It is disgusting what they do and I am sick of it. They do not play, nor do they like gaming, they are just here to incite arguments and pound their chests at the expense of others. The situation is a joke and they will probably never stop. They even have the audacity to think that they are getting support for their actions!! what arrogance. It is all about one-upmanship as someone else succinctly put it and when they get DH'd for their efforts they come out and cry foul as though they are hard done by. It makes me laugh.

Actually, I think Bill is probably not totally unhappy with this sort of thing – nothing like a train-wreck to bring in the punters ;-)

Mr. Devries,

I see you are still at it. Sad, really. Really, really, sad. <:^{

Big Al

… and there goes another carriage!

Jeez- what a vivid description of pack hunt!

"no matter what Kevin says his detractors seem to come out of the woodwork almost immediately to criticise, insult and attack him"

No, Shane – only when he is wrong and won't back down and admit it, or when he is biased. Honest, only then.
I would do and have done the same to anybody.

And I don't criticise, insult (very much) and attack him – only his errors and biases.

Chuvak

If you feel that way about what he presents, Chuvak, certainly criticism is in order. But I would suggest that 'insulting' and 'attacking' are still over the mark.

Arteis,

Attacking the errors and biases are certainly in order. When something is plain wrong, or misleadignly incomplete or similar, I think noting the problem is very reasonable. This is especially true since one of us might make a mistake and buy a book filled with such rubbish hoping to get accurate, complete and unbiased information. I have made that mistake before, when I could less well afford the wasted money. I sure wished I had been warned off beforehand.

I do try to be civil. I think I actually succeed most or even all of the time. Maybe not, as I am not so good at written expression or exposition or whatever the academics call it.

In fact, maybe you can show me where I have attacked the person, rather than the errors or the biases ?

Chuvak

Maybe yours and my interpretations of the word 'attack' are at fault here, Chuvak. I see it as meaning a personal attack. Whereas 'criticism' to me implies that you are addressing the issue dispassionately.

Bear in mind attacking can also be done by tone as by words. I think your use of the word 'rubbish' in your otherwise mainly critical message above could be construed as being aggressive, when you could have used a less emotive word or phrase (eg 'incorrect info').

Maybe we should just have a grown-up's forum and a children's forum. Wouldn't that be nice?-)

Which is pretty well what we ended up with on Napoleonics board, Nvrsaynvr ;-)

I guess the problem is in which one is which. And keeping the kiddies out of the adult one and vice versa.

Arteis,

I think "rubbish" is about right for "plain wrong, or misleadignly incomplete or similar" that you discover for such after you spent money on it.
Again, I describe the books/ideas/etc. as "rubbish", not any person.

As for "tone" ….
If I understand correctly, there are no examples in your mind of when I attacked a person. But, instead, you think my "tone" "could be construed as being aggressive" to one or more persons ?

Gee, I wasn't an English major. And isn't it (in)famous that the internet is a poor means of conveying "tone"?

Anyway, if what we are down to is an accusation that my "tone" might (or might not) be construed as "aggessive" and that this aggressivenes might (or might not) be construed as directed at persons, as opposed to errors and biases … well, then it is a very small indictment that you make, isn't it ?

I bet you are not American. Otherwise you would know how little education we get in written expression. My wife, who is not American, says I am illiterate in several languages.

I will try to do better in making sure that my "tone", when it might possibly be thought of as "aggressive", does not convey the least hint of personal disapprobation, but instead merely conveys what I conceive of as a salubrious contempt for errors and biases.

Chuvak

hehehe – he said salubrious

Sorry Chuvak, I should've gone through and looked at all your postings, but instead I only picked up on your last one. Believe it or not, I am supposed to be working !-)

Oh, and bear in mind I'm not criticising only your postings anyway – you're a very minor offender (sorry!!!) and you actually apologised anyway!

But I still can't see how calling someone's work 'rubbish' is not indirectly aggressive towards that person (I know how I'd feel if you said that to me). On the other hand, telling me my work contained errors might spur me to correct them or address why I don't think they are errors.

Nope, I'm not an American, I'm a New Zealander. But I would think that what you say of education in your country could apply to education in many other nations (mine included)!

We are talking about a _hypothetical_ book being "rubbish" here??? Arteis, take care of business, then get some rest. Maybe things will look different in the morning…

Absolutely hypothetical.

I have never found an entire book so bad as to warrant this description – not yet, anyway.

Chuey

If the book is hypothetical, you've therefore been talking about hypothetically calling it 'rubbish', so is that still being hypothetically aggressive towards the author?!?! I thought you had been talking about a real author?

Oh, my head hurts … hypothetically.

Arteis -
"But I still can't see how calling someone's work 'rubbish' is not indirectly aggressive " – a good point, and I recall a particular individual who was very fond of that one.

Also worth noting that reading (or refusing to read) someone's detailed arguments and evidence and dismissing them out of hand as the work of an underlying agenda while in rebuttal presenting what amounts to either classic confirmation bias or unsupported opinion as absolute TRUTH is deliberately aggressive and insulting – also very petty and very non-"academic"

Academic discussion involves making at least a good faith effort to understand the arguments presented and making at least a good faith effort to present a solid historical basis (either evidence or argument) for the opposing view. Conceding a point is a clue that the participant is seeking to discuss and further their knowledge. Refusal to ever concede a point, reach a middle ground or change an opinion regardless of arguments and evidence presented is a sign of closed-mindedness and indicates a goal not of reasonable discussion but of bloviating, chest-beating and petty one-upmanship.

The nasty nastys I've seen on various fora over the past decade or so I've been hanging about here (and elsewhere) have involved a wide-ranging cast of characters, but there is one who has been at the center of the majority of them, regularly picking fights with new folks to replace the ones who've tired of the game of aggression and insult and gone away. Anyone remember Un Ami? Although Chuvak promises to have more staying power.

@Vendome

Well said, I remeber un Ami, and others – dare I say – Dave Hollins.

Well Dave Hollins was hardly a paragon of even-tempered and informed non-inflammatory academic discussion …

Yep, Un Ami was always a real gentleman, whether he agreed with you or not.

Amen.

[Also worth noting that reading (or refusing to read) someone's detailed arguments and evidence and dismissing them out of hand as the work of an underlying agenda while in rebuttal presenting what amounts to either classic confirmation bias or unsupported opinion as absolute TRUTH is deliberately aggressive and insulting – also very petty and very non-"academic"…. Refusal to ever concede a point, reach a middle ground or change an opinion regardless of arguments and evidence presented is a sign of closed-mindedness and indicates a goal not of reasonable discussion but of bloviating, chest-beating and petty one-upmanship.]

Plus ça change…

TMP link

(A glimpse back into the depths of TMP history, in my salad days. Ah, the idealism of youth!)

How many account names does Kev have? I count four.

You better not ask how many names Sam has had ;-)

Though I note in that old thread that Sam's name has changed to his modern one, whereas Kevin's is still one he used to use at that time?

Steven H Smith

Mr. Devries,

Your continued harassment of me and so many others here on TMP needs to end. I can not believe you are allowed to get away with it over and over.

I feel that it is YOUR posts which are the harassing ones, yet this post and others by you bleat like a little girl's post.

Try to contribute something useful – you might even find it rewarding.

If I am allowed to say it, maybe you should read some of Shane's posts without any bias, and you will see that he does, indeed, contribute quite a lot.

Please stop this harassment NOW.

Exactly what I was talking about above.

Nice try! LOL

Big Al

[You better not ask how many names Sam has had ;-) ]

I kinda thought that the reference to "sock" in my current moniker would clue people in to the joke…

But alas, I was having a rare attack of Excessive Subtlety.

I'm all better now.

He who lives by 'Excessive Subtlety' dies by 'Excessive Subtlety'. I think.

Big Al

Chuey,

Of possible interest:

From Danielle et Bernard Quintin. "La tragédie d'Eylau, 7 et 8 février 1807. Dictionnaire biographique des officiers, sous-officiers et soldats tués ou blessés mortellement au combat. [2006]":

Strength January 1807 – Garde (p. 28):

link

Losses at Eylau – Garde (p. 433):

link

Losses by rank – Garde (p. 441):

link

Garde grenadier field officers (from Fallou pp 95-96):

1st regiment:

link

2nd regiment:

link

Big Al

Danielle et Bernard Quintin. "La tragédie d'Eylau, 7 et 8 février 1807. Dictionnaire biographique des officiers, sous-officiers et soldats tués ou blessés mortellement au combat".

but excludes the "blessés"

unfortunately written from a name point of view, finding the names by regiment not so easy, but I assume it lists every French soldier killed or died of wounds (that they found)

The bio of lieutenant Labarrière was from this book

Yes, but not the 'blessés mortellement'! <;^}

Big Al