"Surprise Christmas Present......." Topic

Do we know who won the war yet? Here's a little light relief for the start of page eleven: YouTube link

They just don't make comedians like JC anymore, thank you SJD, that was great.

Dear Arteis,

A fair point well made. Let's all keep clear of the DH! But the American West, its gunfighters, cowboys, cattle drives, cavalry, indians, WAGONS HO! I just love it and everything to do with it. I even wargame it! So hold me back, I can't resist it!! As for Mr Hollins 'cowboys' though the largest immigrant group to the US in the 100 years to 1920 were Germans followed by the Irish and Italians so who knows:-) Anyway, the Irish and Germans were the dominant ethnic groups of soldiers in the 7th Cavalry in June 1876 including George Armstrong Küster whose ancestors came from Krefeld (that's Krefeld Germany rather than Krefeld Pennsylvania). So could it be argued that The Little Big Horn was a German defeat? :-) None of this unfortunately has anything to do with Waterloo and I apologise in advance for being indulgent:-)

Bill

Dear SJDonovan,

Don't mention the War!! Have you a clip organised for page 12 yet?

Bill

Not yet. But I've got another 45 posts to come up with something.

Perhaps Mr. Hollins could move to a Cowboy forum. Suit him perfectly, I think.

"They just don't make comedians like JC anymore"

Steady on Shane. Isn't there enough controversy in this thread? You don't have to bring religion into it as well.

As for Mr Hollins 'cowboys' though the largest immigrant group to the US in the 100 years to 1920 were Germans

Looking forward shortly to "How the Germans Conquered America"…

Old Bear

If Mr. Hollins sees your posting, do you think it might make him change his mind about a certain American author? Or am I clutching at straws here?

John,

You've got to be kidding. Besides, I'm Anglo-Irish. ;-)

Sincerely,
Kevin

Old Bear@ they are, I had sourkraut for lunch yesterday

"Old Bear@ they are, I had sourkraut for lunch yesterday"

What did he have to eat!! Boom Boom!

Ah, but Old bear is in the UK

Old Bear

If Mr. Hollins sees your posting, do you think it might make him change his mind about a certain American author? Or am I clutching at straws here?

Oh, the internet hardman hit the stifle button way back, presumably in the vain hope that I'll not be asking him to explain his use of the term 'Idiot Tendency' towards me and others the next time I bump into him over here at a show. Then again, with 7 years 'military' experience in the Catering Corps Reserve behind him I imagine that won't cost him any sleep.

Ian,

I'll hold your coat. ;-)

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Ian,

Do I understand that you're offering violence to Mr Hollins publicly for calling you an 'idiot'? He seems have seriously overestimated you. I am also curious to know what your claim to 'military experience' might be.

Bill

Do I understand that you're offering violence to Mr Hollins publicly for calling you an 'idiot'?

Only if you are attempting to stir up trouble, I'd suggest. Unless you would consider that asking a reasonable question to be an act of violence? Well, do you?

As for my claim to military experience, I'd be thrilled for you to point it out to me so that I can unreservedly apologise to you for the entirely innacurate implication. Where was it again?

I'll hold your coat. ;-)

Very kind offer, Kevin, but of course my question would be entirely non-physical in nature and would merely be along the lines of asking why he would choose to verbally abuse me on a non-abuse forum. Now, if this were Frothers, he could happily call me anything he wanted and I'd simply respond using some suitable retorts of my own, but the irony of TMP is that personal abuse is in fact much more personal because of the restricted nature of the place.

Ian,

I do understand that your response would be non-physical in nature, and my offer to hold your coat is in the same vein.

Bill's reply to your posting strikes me as merely trying to provoke, and quite possibly to bait, which goes right along with your explanation of personal abuse that unfortunately goes on all too often here. It's a shame, isn't it?

Sincerely,
Kevin

You referred to Mr Hollins as "the internet hardman" and then made veiled threats about what you and others are going to do to do when you "bump into him". Do you think it is either reasonable or necessary to make unsolicited comment like that here even if it not meant seriously? This is a wargaming forum not Facebook. I don't know what your relationship with Mr Hollins is and I really don't care but the tone of your post was inflammatory and an attempt "to stir up trouble" wasn't it?

You go on to belittle his "military experience in the Catering Corps Reserve". Why? You have something against the Catering Corps or the Territorial Army do you? Why is his army service an issue at all? If it is some kind of joke then I really don't get it.

You are quite right you made no claim to any military experience and I didn't say that you did. I was merely asking a rhetorical question. If I asked what's your claim to fame you wouldn't think I meant you were famous, would you? Anyway I understand from your reply above that you have none which is what I expected.

I would remind you that significant numbers of the Territorial Army were mobilised for Iraq and Afghanistan where some were killed. My niece's husband is in the Royal Logistic Corps and your disparaging remarks are not funny and are actually quite offensive even if you didn't mean them to be.

It is this kind of personal abuse that reminds me what I like least about TMP.

Yours

Bill Hickey

You referred to Mr Hollins as "the internet hardman" and then made veiled threats about what you and others are going to do to do when you "bump into him"

Where? Even if you could by such fraudulent means extrapolate threats from myself (which you can't) you certainly cannot and will not be able to find anywhere any suggestion of parties other than myself being mentioned. Such a comment is disgraceful. As for 'bumping into hin', that's a common British term and implies nothing whatsoever. I'm so sorry that you aren't more familiar with our vernacular.

I don't know what your relationship with Mr Hollins is

No,you don't. However an educated man might take a reasonable guess.

You go on to belittle his "military experience in the Catering Corps Reserve". Why?

If you can't fathom that out the you are not very bright, I'm afraid.

You are quite right you made no claim to any military experience and I didn't say that you did. I was merely asking a rhetorical question.

I'm afraid that is a particularly ridculous statement. You asked me "I am also curious to know what your claim to 'military experience' might be." That appears to me to be a straightforward and direct question, and if indeed you had asked me what my claim to fame was I'd assume you thought I had one, or at least thought I did.

I would remind you that significant numbers of the Territorial Army were mobilised for Iraq and Afghanistan where some were killed. My niece's husband is in the Royal Logistic Corps and your disparaging remarks are not funny and are actually quite offensive even if you didn't mean them to be.

Don't be so silly. It's embarrassing. My remarks were never meant to be funny nor a slur on the Territorial Army, but you already know that. My barb was aimed elsewhere, as well you also know.

It is this kind of personal abuse that reminds me what I like least about TMP.

Yet you defend Hollins. How interesting…

I do understand that your response would be non-physical in nature, and my offer to hold your coat is in the same vein.

Bill's reply to your posting strikes me as merely trying to provoke, and quite possibly to bait, which goes right along with your explanation of personal abuse that unfortunately goes on all too often here. It's a shame, isn't it?

Kevin,

I'm afraid I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. It's a shame that I had to put into writing in a reply to you something which I was quite sure you were fully aware of, simply to ensure that the less well intentioned types would have no lever to operate.

A number of individuals are now being asinine and puerile, which is quite the achievement.

Bill, Just ignore him as, from behind his computer, he is trying to provoke before he goes off whinging to the Editor. It is just playground stuff. I don't know what his problem is, but he can just keep it to himself. If he were to attempt any physical violence towards me, he would have to face a range of consequences.

Incidentally, in his red mist, he has even got his facts wrong. I served in the RN Reserve as a junior officer and have never served with the Army. It is not however relevant anyway.

Old Bear

Best thing is to ignore Hollins and his followers. That really gets them going.

"The reason that academic politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small." – attributed to Woodrow Wilson, Paul Sayre, Henry Kissinger, and others. Even some Germans.

The reason that academic politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.

That's one of my favourite quotes of all times!

Dear Mr Hollins,

Your post is unnecessary and you should not think that I am taking your part in particular. As I said I don't care about your relationship with Mr Barstow. If he has a personal axe to grind with you or anybody else he ought to take it of forum and stop the sniping here.

I detest bullies, virtual or real, and the repeated gang attacks by a little group are clearly meant to intimidate and ridicule in my view. These are directed against anybody they disagree with and decide to pick on, including yourself.

Mr Barstow's disclaimer is charmless and very disingenuous. I am confident that any reasonable person will see it as such.

Yours Sincerely

Bill Hickey

I would only think that you would be objecting to the kind of behaviour displayed by Mr Barstow. I am not expecting you to "take my side", merely suggesting that you ignore him as I and others do. I am of course posting without reading what he is writing, but was really just pointing out that his comments are not even correct, let alone justified.

Mr Barstow's disclaimer is charmless and very disingenuous. I am confident that any reasonable person will see it as such.

Bill, It's not. My issues with Dave Hollins go some way back but if you seriously think I'm dopey enough to offer physical damage to anybody on a public forum you are quite wrong. I am also fully aware of his actual military record. My references to any other form of service are merely gentle teasing.

Likewise I do not in any way expect you to take sides, and I don't believe I have angled any posts that might encourage such a thing. My issues with Dave Hollins are of an intellectual and ethical nature. Nothing more. As I've said before though, a man who calls others idiots with such naked contempt on a protected forum like this needs to be able to justify such a thing face to face should the situation arise. Of course, if he were to openly apologise here that would be the end of the matter.

And yes, I too would be much happier if this all stopped, so in whatever spirit it is worth I shall now go against my own rules and stifle Dave Hollins if only to show a willingness to compromise.

Very interesting and telling post from Mr. Hollins. He said
'I am, of course posting without reading what he was writing, but was really just pointing out that his comments are not even correct, let alone justified.'

Er, how does he know this without even reading them? And does this 'skill' relate to facts on anything Austrian? Perhaps he doesn't have to do research because he already knows what he will find. Spooky or what!

Look, the bullying has come at various times from both sides. Dave Hollins and his group of circling sharks can sometimes be every bit as bullying when they go into a feeding frenzy against someone they disagree with.

And despite Old Bear's attempts to weasel out of it, the tone of his initial post in question definitely came across as bullying (as have other posts he has made in a similar vein on other threads).

The sad thing about this behaviour, from both sides, is that it backs people into corners and blocks any sort of effective self-criticism.

If hollins was not so pretentious and self-righteous as he is which include his insulting behaviour and constant attacks on Kevin then maybe, just maybe the rest of us would leave him alone. But I fear hollins is incapable of just letting go. He is a lawyer by trade and lawyers love to seek retribution, revenge or what they call, justice. He has a mind set that will not let him drop it and shake hands.

Defiant

Good posting. As for lawyers, you've hit the nail on the head there. I think some of them may be far more interested in revenge, winning and money, than they are in justice or fair play. It probably does their heads in when they lose. They just can't cope, you see.

Shane, for heaven's sake, get your ducks in order – it was not me, who started a vicious campaign on Amazon and the Nap Series just because "he did not like the material". As for your efforts with Gazzola to block a critique of Kiley's work, you should consider the points made against it. I had five years of this nonsense and then suddenly "the hand of peace" is extended as his own book was coming out and suddenly, I am in the wrong for criticising the poverty of research and downright rubbish in it! Somehow I am getting "revenge" simply for pointing out that some books are full of rubbish, the nonsense of which could be established by a quick look in a book cited by the author – Duffy clearly shows the bricole in Austrian service in 1757, Hennebert has the text of the 1762 report, the report ion the Strassbourg tests clearly show that the barrels under test are not those of Gribeauval, whose own lifestory in Austria is in Duffy! Why not ask yourself why Kevin so blatantly ignored information, which he claims was right in front of him?

I am getting rather bored with saying this, but with the help of many kind people, I have done a lot of work (much like Peter H) to turn up information, which leads us to a better understanding of the period. If the Keepers of the True Flame do not like it, tough, but I am perfectly entitled to defend my own work and question that of others. If I have gone to the trouble of looking at original German woprks in London and Vienna, I get a bit narked when I see others pretending to have read it and then writing third hand drivel being passed off as original research. The information you have about the Austrian army is not the product of the True Believers, whose only efforts have been directed at book burning. You are perfectly entitled to question my work, but try keeping to that and we can maintain the discourse. Several of you are rather too fond of insulting people and then expecting them to discuss their work – then you profess surprise when it doesn't happen.

Training up as a lawyer has simply taught me how to present and question evidence. Maybe that professional training gives me an advantage – but I am sure you are quite capable of questioning what is put in front of you.

Arteis – the "feeding frenzy" as you call it is solely down to the opportunity to show up the inadequacy of some recent works and the lack of evidence on which they are based, especially when those claims have been presented as though tbey are actually based on the primary material. What I have had has been the Idiot tendency trying to shout mne diown, which is not quite the same.

If other people cannot tell the truth about where their material came from, it is better to show that than to engage in a reasoned discourse. Still here and elsewhere, I see the same old claims, long since discredited by looking at original French material in particular, being repeated and on they go into other books and essays. That gets us nowhere. you cannot discuss with these people, because they know the weakness of heor own position and run away claiming they are being hard done to.

Would you hold my coat too? LOL

ahh dave, your very quick reply and gist of your post was simply just another avenue to take another snipe yet again on several fronts. Everything you post has a "not so hidden" agenda. You do not post for the sake of expanding the knowledge of others, you post for revenge, simple as that.

Training up as a lawyer has simply taught me how to present and question evidence.

It also teaches you to be adversorial. A lawyer usually represents one side or the other, so is good at presenting evidence that supports their side. But s/he is not so interested in presenting evidence that supports the other side, other than questioning how it can be discredited.

I would suggest another good set of skills: the ability to work in cooperation with other parties who hold differing views, and to foster an atmosphere of open sharing and cooperative learning. Possibly someone with the skills of a good teacher trained in social inquiry. Someone who can engage with all sides and overcome problems around ownership and attachment to viewpoints. And who can promote an openess to self-questioning and self-criticism amongst the whole team.

And don't come back to me that you have already tried that, but the other side wouldn't let you. All that proves is a lack of skill in fostering cooperative learning in challenging situations. That takes training, every bit as much as a lawyer's training in presenting and questioning evidence.

By the way, while it looks like I'm picking on just you here, it is only because I'm purely addressing your statement about lawyers' training. But the same lack of cooperation skills stands true of many others here, on both sides, from whatever walk of life they come from.

In fact, the ideal would be if you used your legal training, and others also used their training as academics, teachers, police officers and whatever, in cooperation with each other to add to the total pool of skills that can be focussed on discovering history.

Defiant

I didn't know we were working together? Another Hollins myth. Blocking a critique????

He boasts of taking the 'trouble' to do research. Research is a blessing, very frustrating at times but still a blessing , especially if you are able to go abroad for further research. He should be happy he can do so, not see it as 'gone to the trouble' Does he want a medal or something?

It is also interesting, how he can still get things wrong, despite going to the trouble and not reply to posts pointing it out. Might be a lawyers trick, I suppose.

Well said Arteis,

Lawyers are trained to take sides and present the evidence for a single side while ignoring that of the other or trying to counter it in any way they can to undermine it. This shows here in hollin's posts on TMP and is frustrating because this is NOT a court of law. It is a discussion forum for ALL of us to discuss the period. Hollin's has no ability to be amicable or accommodating in any way, shape or form. His training is solely focused on presenting the facts "as he sees them" and undermining the credibility of all others who appose his point of view.

He has no ability to communicate in a cooperative manner to share viewpoints and discuss an issue in a way that does not undermine that of his opponents. His training as a lawyer has led him to believe his viewpoint is correct and superior that that of his opponents and he clearly exhibits a condescending manner of rebuttal on anyone who opposes him.

I don't even think Hollins understands he does this or if he does he ignores it because of his own deep belief of his own superiority because of his training. He sees those that oppose him as simply the stuff he scrapes off the underside of his shoes.

Hi Gazz,

Apparently you and I must be a tag team?

I can assure him that I have never met Gaz in my life but I am grateful for his stance he and Old Bear have taken to fight against the stuff that hollins says at times.

My pet hate of hollin's is his continual use of his favourite word, "myth". Every time he sees something his does not agree with it is apparently a "myth". He cannot say the word "opinion" because he is not programmed or trained to use such words in his profession. Opinions are not facts so having one is invalid. He fails to understand that even in his own profession opinions are formed based on analysis of the facts presented. I am sure hollin's has them but will not admit to it.

Several of you are rather too fond of insulting people and then expecting them to discuss their work – then you profess surprise when it doesn't happen.

???

He boasts about going to the trouble of doing research!!! I could not care less if he never writes another book in his life. His manner and personality exhibited here on TMP has biased my "opinion" of his credibility to do unbiased research based on the evidence he has presented here over the years of his personality and how he deals with people he does not like.

Dave, for just one single second stop and think. You are trained as a lawyer to take sides. Your training has forced you to act as you do here in a manner that is not consistent with open and free expression of opinion. I don't think you actually understand this and that is why you act as you do on TMP. Yes my own manner is not too hot either but I am not writing books either. You should take a minute to step back and see how you come across to most of us who have to read your constant insults of others you do not agree with.

Calling people liars, cheats, and many other insulting terms is not going to endear you to people here. You just do not understand that your professional training as a lawyer and your academic research may be an advantage to you but in a social forum that has freedom of expression and is deeply set with the ability to form opinions is contradictory to your way of thinking. Unless you let things live as they are and allow people to express their opinions you are always going to have issues on TMP with other contributors who have the right to express their opinions.

Defiant: As I pointed out, lawyers' training is not the be-all-and-end-all of assets, and does have the adversorial drawback in this context. But despite this, it is still a very good asset.

So instead of running down Dave, how about encouraging him to harness his training assets with those of others (including yourself) in a cooperative way. Running down him or his profession won't help at all.

re-read my post Arteis…

Oh, I see you've edited it since my last posting, Defiant. I'll re-read it now.

Dear Arteis,

Thank you for a breath of fresh air. I have been using TMP for six years. I post infrequently and give up entirely from time to time as the behaviour of some individuals makes it simply too unpleasant. I keep coming back in the hope that things will improve but they never do and I see that this thread has now turned into a childish 'get Hollins' exercise. It is always the same old names that appear and is rather like observing the Three Stooges with each feeding of the others' lines. I have no idea how they behave in the real world but here their ill-mannered obstinacy and mocking repartee are a bloody disgrace.

Bill

Bill (XV Brigada): I also find Dave Hollins et al's "Get Kevin" exercises on other threads just as unpleasant!

"Ill-mannered obstinacy and mocking repartee" could be terms for the behaviour of quite a few people here, on both sides.

The sad thing is that both sides are as bad as each other in this respect, and yet so easily they could work together.

Arteis – I am afraid you are repeating a popular fallacy, based on one too many US courtroom dramas. It is any lawyer's duty to represent his client in the most effective way possible. That does mean presenting his side in the best way possible, but it also means that the lawyer must clearly understand the opposing case. Otherwise, it is not possible to represent your client in the most effective way – there are times when you have to tell the client to give up. Any lawyer is only going to look a fool if his case is instantly undermined by something presented by the other side. Consequently, there is no point trying to ignore inconvenient weaknesses on your side or strong points on the other side – both will have light shone on them. It is not a question of discrediting the other side, but in presenting your side and questioning theirs, to demonstrate that your argument is correct or at least, in civil issues, the better of the two.

In a legal sense after the initial exchanges of claims and defence, there is a process called discovery of documents, when all the relevant docs are exchanged – and woe betide any lawyer trying to "forget" anything. The discussion can then continue before the episode goes to court. At all times, you are considering the strengths and weaknesses of BOTH sides.

We don't have the opportunity to exchange documents, so necessarily it comes down to discussing what is presented and its origins. One of the key Napoleonic problems is the third hand Chinese whispers, so inevitably, there will be challenges not just to opinion, but to what is presented as "fact". That should not exclude anyone as the newest recruit can pose an interesting question or idea.

I realise you are not picking on me, but you are being unfair in suggesting that I "should cooperate". I always do with people, who are genuinely interested in forwarding the subject – Marengo was born of Marco Gioannini and Terry Crowdy approaching me. Terry and I had many long debates about the battle – we still look at it now! I can disagree with people like Bernhard Voykowitch and Stephen Summerfield, but it is a sensible exchange of views and I will happily support their work. I have translated material for other people and have even worked on subjects I know little about (Peter H and I have worked together many times although our interests hardly cross!). I had to work with Vlado and Darko to get the MAA on the Frontier Troops sorted out – that was a 2-way process, but the result seems to be top class (I helped Vlado with his 30YW books, but I know little about the subject). The institutions in Austria and Hungary have always been very helpful and I have done what I can to help them (I even asked one of the staff out, when my German was not great!). Look at my acknowledgements in the Ospreys.

I can have quite long and detailed debates with people like Evan Polley and Un Ami, even where we are somewhat at odds – their questions, ideas and new material have made me look at Marengo and N's finances again. The difficulty comes when the Tendency get involved as they are only seeking to muddy the waters to protect the received wisdom.

Of course, we should cooperate and add our own angle. Most of us do, but there seems to be some strange belief that somehow the truth is "halfway inbetween" and that all opinions have equal value. They don't – they depend on the material on which they are based and it is not possible to cooperate with people, who believe in their Sacred Texts and wage some frankly rather bizarre campaigns on sites and the Net generally. There is a history to this right from the start, so I am never going to claim that I tried to cooperate with Kevin or any of his acolytes. I am sure there are people you would not work with for all kinds of perfectly good reasons – but bear in mind what has gone on and I think you will see that cooperating with everyone is just not going to happen, especially when you can see for yourself how poor theor own work is.

That is what I mean, Dave. You can and do obviously cooperate with people who you feel are prepared to cooperate.

But where the real skill comes in is to encourage cooperative learning from those who in your view are less inclined to do so. And that is where your lawyers' training won't help at all.

I would suggest calling people "The [Idiot] Tendency" is not going to encourage any sort of cooperative learning for a start!

Oh, and where does the statement "there seems to be some strange belief that somehow the truth is 'halfway inbetween' and that all opinions have equal value" come from?

That is not at all what cooperative learning is all about.

And, yes, I know there is history to this. Which is why I sometimes wonder why I waste so much time trying to stand between you two – it isn't going to change anything, is it?

I guess it is partly because of the lost opportunities in having everyone working together.

But it is also because of the manner in which this 'history' has denigrated the general perception of a wargaming period I love. You only have to look at the derision many TMPers have for the Napoleonics boards – and I would say that is 90% because of your and Kevin's ongoing personal dispute.