| Chouan | 08 Nov 2013 10:28 a.m. PST |
|
| Whirlwind | 08 Nov 2013 10:49 a.m. PST |
Yes, like I said before, you really have no case. Oh you've given up because you've been shown to be wrong and simply biased towards your friends. Too bad. |
| Flecktarn | 08 Nov 2013 10:50 a.m. PST |
|
| Flecktarn | 08 Nov 2013 11:01 a.m. PST |
Chouan, Gin and tonic is pleasant, especially Tanqueray, but I like mine with ice. I received some news today; the date of my next assignment:). I am going back to the Vaterland at the end of August next year to attend the Führungsakademie to get my i.G. Jurgen |
| M C MonkeyDew | 08 Nov 2013 11:11 a.m. PST |
|
| Chouan | 08 Nov 2013 2:11 p.m. PST |
Good for you, on the assumption that it is a good thing and something that you wish for!
Ice in a G&T is only necessary if the gin and the tonic aren't sufficiently cold. Ice dilutes the tonic, thus diminishing the fizz. However, if the gin is of sufficiently high alcohol content it can be kept in the freezer compartment, thus, as long as the tonic has been kept cold, ice needn't be introduced.
I'm, not sure what Elting and Herold would have thought of this, or even Chandler, but 39 years acquaintance with Mr.Gin has taught me that much.
Just as an aside, gin is, and has been for the last century, the Naval spirit of choice. Despite popular associations of rum with mariners, in my experience gin stands head and shoulders above the rest. |
| Sparker | 08 Nov 2013 2:30 p.m. PST |
So what brands of Gin will stand being kept in the Freezer compartment? I assume as a true coinesseur you only indulge in Plymouth Gin, but I have to say I have tried and failed to keep it liquid in a freezer… And what are your views on a slice of cucumber with your 'mother's ruin'? |
| ColonelToffeeApple | 08 Nov 2013 3:01 p.m. PST |
As I understand it, Flecktarn will want to go to the academy if he plans on returning to TMP some day as a General. I was given a large porcelain and wicker flagon of genuine pussers rum, some 25 years ago by a Quartermaster I did a favour for. It was the real McCoy which you had to dilute to drink. I don't know if it was the naval drink of choice but it was most definitely rocket fuel. Didn't try putting any in the freezer though :-). |
| Ben Waterhouse | 08 Nov 2013 3:10 p.m. PST |
Gin should, of course, have a bit of pink in it (esp. for the Andrew). Glenmorangie is being taken at the moment in the company of some old Cold War Kameraden. |
| Sparker | 08 Nov 2013 11:23 p.m. PST |
Well I only drink my rum in a Cuba Libre or in a Painkiller. I do remember that charity auction when they uncovered a long forgotten store full of Pussers in Pompey Dockyard around 1998…
The stuff you get from The Pusser's Rum Company is pretty good though, especially the proof version they only sell on the island. Glenmorangie is a fave though, have a good evening! |
| Chouan | 09 Nov 2013 3:35 a.m. PST |
Alcohol content is the issue; if it's below 40% it freezes. 40% and above it becomes oily in consistency. Pink Gin was the favourite, traditionally, using Plymouth Gin, but G&T took over especially in the Merch, which is my preferred tipple now. I tried it with cucumber, using Hendricks, but I wasn't impressed. Now I stick to Tanqueray, although I put it in a Sainsbury's Blackfriars bottle, because it fits in the freezer better.
I bought my late father a bottle of Pussers one Christmas, he finished it by lunchtime, had his Christmas dinner, with a couple of glasses of champagne, then slept for the rest of the day…… |
| TelesticWarrior | 09 Nov 2013 4:36 a.m. PST |
Oh you've given up because you've been shown to be wrong and simply biased towards your friends. Too bad. That's very disingenious Whirlwind. I already showed you that you have no case, not my problem if you want to keep scraping that barrel bottom of yours. If I have given up it is because I know your particular case of cataracts is beyond rescue. Its more of a case of boredom and "once bitten, twice shy". I learnt a long time ago that your attempts to force a discussion or specific quotes to conform to your own personal biases can go on for weeks. Remember when I accused one of your amigos of being an overly-biased boney-basher and you gave a snippet of one of his quotes as a refutation, but then I tracked down the full quote? Remember this?; According to Kleber he was nothing else than a miserable charlaton, according to Wellington Jonathan Wild the Great after Fieldings mock – heroic Prince of Theives, who was an adventurer who survived by building ever bigger and better confidence tricks, pruly upon the unsound basis of successfull smaller erlier ones, according to Tulard his genius is shown in propaganda.
He conducted some brillaint campaigns – yet on the other hands lost miserably in 1812 and had a string of defeats from 1812 onwards.
He never understood logistics – did not learn anything out of his failure in Syria and Poland 1807, left twice his soldiers to persue higher own goals – 100 percent egoistical, not caring for his soldiers.
He never even touched the class of Alexander the Great and there are others who were much better than him (like Grant).
Destroyed documents to be able to write his own glorified history. LOL. The Grant bit still makes me giggle. |
| Whirlwind | 09 Nov 2013 5:30 a.m. PST |
na TW, you are wrong again. I already showed you that you have no case, not my problem if you want to keep scraping that barrel bottom of yours It is you with no case, you at the bottom of the barrel. Not only have you been clearly shown to have been wrong on your 'who started it' chase here, you have also dredged up you being wrong from months ago. I showed that the TMP member in question did admire Napoleon to some extent – "he conducted brilliant campaigns" – as you have demonstrated above. I already know as well as you do that the poster in question does not admire Napoleon as much as you – big deal. Yet again you show your bias and your incomprehension of the nuanced good/bad approach other posters have. |
| Whirlwind | 09 Nov 2013 5:39 a.m. PST |
Oh, the reason for the poster's opinion: Grant was the only one who orchestrated two campaigns on two fronts and got the logisitcs right, Napoleon never accomplished that, he was much inferior to Grant. Not an opinion I myself share, but hardly risible. |
| Whirlwind | 09 Nov 2013 5:42 a.m. PST |
Oh, in case anyone wants to read the context TMP link TW wrote: and to listen to some of them you would think Napoleon never did anything good, ever, in any walk of life And so, obviously, TW was wrong. |
| M C MonkeyDew | 09 Nov 2013 5:55 a.m. PST |
Looks like the cheval mort is still in the starting gate. Who will win the race? |
| TelesticWarrior | 09 Nov 2013 6:19 a.m. PST |
I think we know the context by now Whirlwind, it goes one beyond one quote or one thread.
My bigger point, then and now, was that if you are so blind that you cannot recognise the bias of someone like VonW, then you have no hope of percieving these other issues of bias, and these kind of conversations are not really worth having. The cheval mort will not get out of the gates no matter how many times we hit it. |
| Whirlwind | 09 Nov 2013 6:22 a.m. PST |
It is you who beat the dead horse, these accusations that some members of TMP are bullying or biased when it is demonstrably not the case. …if you are so blind that you cannot recognise the bias of someone like VonW… He just disagrees with you for reasons which he explains. He is no more biased than you are, |
| TelesticWarrior | 09 Nov 2013 6:35 a.m. PST |
…when it is demonstrably not the case. Go on then. Demonstrate it…
He just disagrees with you for reasons which he explains. Not really, he is one of those that stifles anyone who dares disagree, in the vain hope that that will somehow make his beliefs more correct. |
| Flecktarn | 09 Nov 2013 6:43 a.m. PST |
"Not really, he is one of those that stifles anyone who dares disagree, in the vain hope that that will somehow make his beliefs more correct." There are two problems with this statement: 1. You claim to know the stifles anyone who disagrees with him, something which you do not know. 2. You claim to know hs motivation for stifling people, something which you cannot know. Stupidity and arrogance do not sit well together. Jurgen |
| Whirlwind | 09 Nov 2013 6:47 a.m. PST |
@TW – I already have, in this thread and others. |
| TelesticWarrior | 09 Nov 2013 8:35 a.m. PST |
Whirlwind,
you have done no such thing, trying to back out now is very indicative of the weakness of your position. Once again, you have no case. Why didn't you just come to that conclusion from the start rather than wasting both our time?
Flecktarn,
No problems at all, only to someone who lacks experience and is generally ignorant of TMP, which is what you are.
You have been on TMP for the briefest time and yet you always wish to pontificate on discussions and themes that happened well before you were here. Now that is stupidity at its finest.
I suggest you go back to talking about gin and other such irrelevancies that you seem to think belong on a Napoleonic forum. Maybe one day we can all talk about something that happened during the Napoleonic wars. Won't that be exciting!
|
| Whirlwind | 09 Nov 2013 8:43 a.m. PST |
TW, it is you who haved wasted the time, trying to put blame on those who didn't deserve it. I don't expect enough of you for you actually to withdraw your remarks of course, but I have shown you repeatedly that you have no case. |
| TelesticWarrior | 09 Nov 2013 8:51 a.m. PST |
Whirlwind,
as you seem to like to flogging a dead horse and defending indefensible positions, I think you should give up whatever you are doing and become a defence lawyer for blatant known criminals. I think you might even win a few cases, not because of the strength of your arguments, but because you can put the prosecution, jury and judge to sleep! |
| ColonelToffeeApple | 09 Nov 2013 8:52 a.m. PST |
Well I think you just have to read my posts in the last couple of pages in this thread, including clips, and my position becomes very clear as regards posting and stifling, so there wouldn't be much point in repeating it again. Von Winterfeldt, taken on his posts, is to my mind quite anti-Napoleon. As regards Napoleon, my position has always been that he is one of the greatest military commanders in history, even started a thread about it and no one could seriously disagree. If I don't descend into the arena that much, the reason can be found in my post on bias a page or two ago, plus I do not have the ability to quote chapter and verse. My source for my opinion on Napoleon is my own mind based on years of reading, and there is never anything meaningful enough posted to make me change it. I didn't take the OP particularly seriously and even if I had it wouldn't have changed my opinion of Napoleon. And I most certainly don't think I have a bias. It's important not to get bogged down in niff naff and trivia. |
| Flecktarn | 09 Nov 2013 8:56 a.m. PST |
"No problems at all, only to someone who lacks experience and is generally ignorant of TMP, which is what you are.
You have been on TMP for the briefest time and yet you always wish to pontificate on discussions and themes that happened well before you were here. Now that is stupidity at its finest." Thank you so much for providing the evidence to support my case; it is most kind of you. Jurgen |
| Whirlwind | 09 Nov 2013 9:28 a.m. PST |
as you seem to like to flogging a dead horse and defending indefensible positions, I think you should give up whatever you are doing and become a defence lawyer for blatant known criminals. I think you might even win a few cases, not because of the strength of your arguments, but because you can put the prosecution, jury and judge to sleep! Na, mate, that is you. I've shown you where you've made your mistakes and you have nowhere to go but bluster and insult. Too bad. |
| ColonelToffeeApple | 09 Nov 2013 10:17 a.m. PST |
|
| Arteis | 09 Nov 2013 12:50 p.m. PST |
Most arguments on the Naps Boards can still be educative (and of course entertaining) to read. This one, however, has devolved into the stupidest of childish tit-for-tat, and does no credit to either side at all. And can I say from the outside looking in, nearly everything that either side is saying about the other is totally interchangeable. |
| TelesticWarrior | 09 Nov 2013 3:09 p.m. PST |
Colonel,
I like the 3rd one too, he's definitely a better drummer than the 4th. You are quite correct about your previous thread, nobody could put forward a serious argument for Napoleon not being one of the greatest commanders in history. As for Napoleon the man, I would say that he was egotistical and tyrannical, but to his credit he decided to put France before his own ambitions rather than deliver it to the mob, at the cost of his own downfall.
Most if not all of the ruling houses of the time were enemies of the people to some extent. I tend to follow Shakespeare's phrase of a "pox on both your houses" when it comes to analysing the behaviour of the French and the British, although in all honesty I have to say that I feel Britain must take the lions share of the blame. Perfidious Albion seemed to be hell bent on tearing up the Amiens peace, whilst Napoleon for his part attempted multiple times to save it. So Britain was largely responsible for the decade of conflict that was to follow, paying coalition after coalition to rise against France. Boney's behaviour towards Spain was the worst thing he did, although there are other examples of him acting the tyrant.
As for bias, we all suffer from it to an extent. But the anti-napoleon/blindly British faction of TMP far outnumbers their opponents, so I often find myself arguing on the minority side.
Arteis,
I would say that you are correct, a thoroughly childish, pointless and mean-spirited thread all round.
|
| Sparker | 09 Nov 2013 3:10 p.m. PST |
Very true Roly, lets hope this one has died a natural death… Although I was finding the booze discussion interesting, if, admittedly, slightly off topic! |
| Chouan | 09 Nov 2013 3:11 p.m. PST |
"I suggest you go back to talking about gin and other such irrelevancies that you seem to think belong on a Napoleonic forum." As I tried to post earlier, and got "dawghoused" for, conversations and discussions are organic, and can develop their own direction. I like to think that TMP is rather like a conversation between, well, acquaintances, at least, and that such conversations develop their own momentum. They aren't tutorials, where the discussion is controlled and directed, although some seem to think that they should be. Perhaps, if the thread's direction becomes diverted, according to a member's opinion, one should disregard the diversions and simply focus on what one is interested in, rather getting petulant about it's development? What would one do in a real conversation? Whinge and moan, or wait until the conversation becomes of interest again? |
| Chouan | 09 Nov 2013 3:18 p.m. PST |
"My source for my opinion on Napoleon is my own mind based on years of reading, and there is never anything meaningful enough posted to make me change it."
Quite. I said pretty much the same thing on another thread, but was then accused of being biased, and, subsequently, effectively accused of being a bad historian. I am open to argument and to being convinced otherwise, but my opinion, based on years of reading (about 40 or so) is quite established, by reason and reflection rather than by preconceived ideas. |
| TelesticWarrior | 09 Nov 2013 3:42 p.m. PST |
Chouan, Wines and spirits are never a complete irrelevancy, I take that back. |
| ColonelToffeeApple | 09 Nov 2013 5:35 p.m. PST |
Chouan, I don't think anyone would call you a bad historian and one of your specialities is the revolutionary period. I do recall that in another thread you freely admitted that you did not regard yourself as a military history expert, which was refreshingly candid. For what it is worth, I would regard you, based on the posts you make on TMP as being somewhat anti-Napoleon. I don't need to question your knowledge, the depth of your reading or the rationale behind the formulation of your views in reaching that position, merely disagree with some of your interpretation. Thus I can of course reserve the right to question the weight I place behind an opinion you express based on my perception of an acquired bias. In any event not much turns on it, and in real life it would hardly cause anyone to spill their gin and tonic and besides I have openly admitted that my early influence was Airfix box art which may well have led me to have preconceptions. Telesticwarrior I personally haven't noticed a particular pro-British faction, more just a case of detractors and supporters of Napoleon. I would accept that you are invariably in a minority as regards the views you advance at times. In any event people are free to disagree, and long may it continue, hopefully without dawghousing and a locked account in future. But that would mean a retention of perspective and a sense of humour, and of course an avoidance of use of the complaint button |
| TelesticWarrior | 10 Nov 2013 4:25 a.m. PST |
Where is this complaint button?
I haven't complained about anyone on this forum so far, I was tempted once or twice but my better nature got the better of me. I am sure snitches exist, and I do think its true that dawghousings are made on the basis of complaints that are made. It would stand to reason that the Editor does not have the time to sift through every thread looking for misdemeanour's, and I have been dawghoused on occasion for some innocuous things, whilst on the other hand I and others have escaped imprisonment on other occasions when I was sure we would be. So I think its a complaint based system. EDIT; i am not at all saying that all the complaints that are made are without merit. Personal attacks are worthy of a dawhousing, and I saw that some people were recently DG'd for sexual harassment and right-wing views. A very unpleasant business indeed, which just makes me question if the disputes on the Nap boards are anything to get that worked up about. Its also another reason why Gazz's locked account seems over-the-top to me. |
| Mal Sabreur | 10 Nov 2013 5:29 a.m. PST |
TW. Thanks for having a go at me whilst I was unable to respond.
Brechtel wrote
"And if you're going to make such pejorative statements as 'much of the population of France were de-humanized and unured to mindless murder' you at least should attempt to support it, which you have not done.
Your posting is full of sweeping, inaccurate statements which have little or no basis in historic fact. " Which was supposed to be a "quote" of what I had posted., Which, in fact read "Most of his subordinates had lived through the Revolution and subsequent "Terror" where all civilized ways and values were thrown out the window and much of the population of France, particularly those who rose to the top (like scum, not cream) were de-humanised and inured to mindless murder, torture and execution." Far from being a "sweeping statement", this is a brief but accurate description of "The Terror" If people are going to "quote" me, (or anyone else) could they please ensure that they do so accurately and in context without adding or taking away to suit their opinions. By using quotation marks or using the >quotes symbols to highlight someone's words, you are stating that you have used their words verbatim and then to do otherwise is unethical and little short of outright lying.
Please note that all my quotations here are full and accurate. Of course, the cherry on the cake was Tw's deliberate misquote of a deliberate misquote, substituting "Britain" for "France" in a way that was completely senseless. This initial post was in no way "inflammatory", digging at anyone, aggressive or rude. Brechtel's response WAS. TW states,
"everyone was in general agreement until Mal's irrational posts, Kevin made a rational response, yet Flectktarn and Spreewalden decided to use the opportunity to attack him for it. It's quite pathetic really." I can see NO adverse response to my initial post from anyone other than Brechtel and TW. Hardly "everyone." I can only assume that the lack of disagreement to my post from others means it was broadly correct. Again, that "everyone" puts TW's views into the mouths of all. If you are looking for "first stones," try Brechtel's "For Jurgen and Sam, Gentlemen (and I use the term loosely), Here is an appropriate quote from Abraham Lincoln that both of you might wish to heed and follow, especially when you wish to bait and attempt to pick a fight: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" B" Of course, the funniest post in the whole thread is Brechtels's,
"TW, You are absolutely correct. No one has ever said that Napoleon was a 'paragon of virtue.' That accusation has been used as a strawman argument more than once when arguments have been lost and accusations must then be thrown, usually inaccurate or fabricated ones. B." What, if anything, is the argument here about? That some of us, myself included, should think PERHAPS he was NOT, despite my own admitted admiration of the man.
Hisory is ABOUT bias and dissent -a historian without a personal view would hardly be worth reading. They might as well just present a heap of primary documents or hearsay and say "There you are, get on with it yourself" I find the saddest thing about this discussion is that 138SquadronRAF, who was not even part of it, should choose to leave the forum because of the attitudes on display here, and to him I offer my humble and unreserved apology for my part in forcing that decision. Like 138SquadronRAF and Flecktarn, both of whose posts I have usually found to be worth reading I am beginning to wonder whether it is worth bothering with the TMP forum. I have found the vast majority of its' members to be helpful, sensible, knowledgeable and fair, but the few who are unwilling and/or unable to see anyone's view but their own to have any validity whatsoever.
It will probably be quite a while before I post on TMP again, so well done Brechtel and Telestic Warrior. That's another one less in the "Bonaparte as a mere mortal" camp.
Cheers Mal |
| TelesticWarrior | 10 Nov 2013 9:12 a.m. PST |
Sheesh, I knew this would flare up again as soon as Mal got out the slammer. Mal, we were discussing the cause of the threads decline, that is why your name was mentioned, so I make no apology at all for bringing up your shenanigans whilst you were unable to respond. You seem to have calmed down a tiny bit, but you are still making too many mistakes and acting irrationally. You have had plenty of time in the slammer to compose a response, yet you appear to have missed all the main points. You are indeed a "bad sabreur", missing every parry. Too many to list in your latest rant, but here are a few; 1. You did make several imflammatory and sweeping statements. They are clear to see on page 1. I can quote them "verbatim" for you if I really must, although I would rather not as Man Utd vs Arsenal is about to start. 2. I did not mis-quote something, I clearly told Whirlwind that I was changing the word France to Britain in an effort to make him see that the comment would be an irrational one if I changed it to a nationality he was partial too. I could have just as easily said Mongolia or Canada. Everyone seems to have understood why I did that, except you. 3. Brechtel did not cast the first stone. The "For Jurgen and Sam, Gentlemen (and I use the term loosely)" comment clearly post-dated the derogatory comments by Sam and Flecktarn. Go read it again. 4. If people want to voluntarily leave the forum they should stop whining and just do it. For your information 138SquadronRAF has been saying he is going to leave for quite some time, yet he is still here. So are you and Flecktarn, mores the pity. People need to grow up a bit and realise the forum does not revolve around their thin skins. |
| Edwulf | 10 Nov 2013 9:20 a.m. PST |
3-1 Arsenal. Giroud, Ramsey and Ozil. Van Persie to score 1 for Man Utd.
You can take that to the bookies. |
| M C MonkeyDew | 10 Nov 2013 9:49 a.m. PST |
"Inventive" use of quotations may very well be what this entire thread was about if you read the article in the DM.
: ) Bob |
| Chouan | 10 Nov 2013 9:57 a.m. PST |
The complaint button is the one above each post with an exclamation mark. |
| Pliable Libyan | 10 Nov 2013 12:32 p.m. PST |
|
| TelesticWarrior | 10 Nov 2013 1:40 p.m. PST |
Edwulf,
You got half the score-line correct! I hope you didn't put too much money on your prediction.
M C LeSingeDew,
Indeed!
Chouan,
Ah yes, of course. Thanks.
Pliable Libyan,
Napoleon drank a lot of wine. Chambertin was his favourite. I don't think he liked gin, more of a British sailors thing I think.
Mal Sabreur,
Sorry about the rant earlier. I have a nasty head cold so I was feeling a bit cranky. Lets call it quits?
|
| dibble | 10 Nov 2013 1:52 p.m. PST |
Did Napoleon drink gin? I don't know if Nappy had a liking for Gin but I do know that he forward combed, ate lots of onions and had a kinky liking for smelly lolomoda.com/cute-cats-pictures Paul :) |
| Pliable Libyan | 10 Nov 2013 1:54 p.m. PST |
Thanks Telestatic. This is why I consider these forums an invaluable resource for one who happens to be in the pursuit of insider knowledge ie that which would not normally be available whist devouring the generic texts. Kudos to you all, and keep it coming |
| Edwulf | 10 Nov 2013 4:00 p.m. PST |
Yeah. Disappointing from Arsenal. My fantasy football team lost out on a few points there. |
| Flecktarn | 11 Nov 2013 3:07 a.m. PST |
Mal, It is good to see you back and out of prison; I hope that the food and the company were tolerable. It is probably best not to take too much notice of the TelesticWarrior; he is clearly on a mission to be as offensive as possible to as many people as possible. It does appear that TMP does indeed need a Gazzola-like figure in order to survive, and TelesticWarrior seems to be fast becoming that figure. I am going to stay on TMP, in part because my presence seems to annoy TW so very much. If I may be so forward as to offer you advice, it would be to also remain here and share with the rest of us, while laughing quietly to yourself at those who are so utterly self-obsessed and so fanatical about their long-dead hero. Jurgen |
| Flecktarn | 11 Nov 2013 3:08 a.m. PST |
Chouan, It is indeed something that I wish for. The two year course is a necessary step to General rank. Jurgen |
| Flecktarn | 11 Nov 2013 3:13 a.m. PST |
I am not sure that gin was a British sailors' drink in particular; my understanding, albeit that of a foreigner, was that gin was the drink of the poorer classes and was not so prevalent in the Napoleonic period, as exemplified by Hogarth's Gin Lane: link Jurgen |
| Chouan | 11 Nov 2013 3:38 a.m. PST |
It has been the RN and MN Officers' drink of choice since the late 19th Century at least. Prior to that it would have been claret, port, or madeira, and brandy. For the other ranks it would always have been rum until beer became practicable.
It was also, as you suggest, the drink of the poorest classes from the early 18th century until the mid 19th, when there was a cultural change. |
