"U.S. Army seeks removal of Lee, ‘Stonewall’ Jackson honors" Topic

See here.

link

Amicalement
Armand

This story sufaces every few years. Is not going to happen boys. Nothing to see here.

Tango,

FYI: "STOP ONE MOMENT GENTLEMEN!!!! Sorry to shout.

You have been the victim of media hype, here is what the Commandant of the US Army War College has to say on the matter. link

It appears that if the function of the original story was to stir up a certain proportion of the American population it has succeeded admirably. The moral of this is sorry tale, please check your sources before coming out from under your bridge in a state of agitation."

From this thread:
TMP link

I figured you would appreciate someone telling you to "…check your sources before coming out from under your bridge in a state of agitation." Not the best way to get along on TMP…

V/R,
Jack

It has been debunked within the last week on TMP.

"It has been debunked within the last week on TMP."

I know, that's what I said, even provided a link.

Ohhhhhh, I get it ;)

Jack

This is why a little more discretion with these posts is warranted.

TMP link

And now that I think about it … on occasion I've posted something that has already been … However, sometimes the title the posters choose really gives you no idea about what the subject of the post is … like the TMP link I posted above … Titles should accurate and brief … Here's another one – entitled "about time ?" – TMP link About time for what ? A ?

I figured you would appreciate someone telling you to "…check your sources before coming out from under your bridge in a state of agitation." Not the best way to get along on TMP…

And that my dear Jack is why I have more stifles than you do.

My dear cousin, the reference to "coming out from under your bridge in a state of agitation." was aimed at the poster of the first time the story cropped up here and they seemed to take the story as a personal affront. Naturally, it does not apply to you.

Elliott

Elliott,

I agree with you that the thread was going off the rails, but I didn't understand why you jumped on StoneMtnMinis for posting it.

I personally don't understand why folks post stuff like this as it's link to miniatures and/or wargaming is thin at best, but clearly it's not against the rules to do it.

"My dear cousin, the reference to "coming out…"

Do I have to call you cousin now? ;)

Take care.

V/R,
Jack

Jack,

No we are not related, but I am related to Tango – yes it's a small world.

I jumped on the OP because it was not the only place it was posted and in the same way that created two flame wars, if you thought the tread here went down hill quickly, the other degenerated even faster.

A little fact checking and calm reflection goes a long way to making this a pleasanter place for all of us.

Elliott,

Ah, now I get it! It struck me as a little funny that you were suddenly referring to me as cousin, but I've been called worse, even here on TMP! ;)

"A little fact checking and calm reflection goes a long way to making this a pleasanter place for all of us."

Amen! Here's to all of us being a bit more pleasant towards each other.

V/R,
Jack

Of course, one should consider the source of the article. The Washington Times has a well deserved reputation for right-wing yellow journalism. As Just Jack noted, the intent was less to inform and more to agitate. (And, yes, BOTH sides engage in this sort of thing. And it is just as reprehensible…)

the intent was less to inform and more to agitate

Isn't that the purpose of most media these days?

Not the better ones. There are still some journalists and media outlets who take their work seriously. Of course, there are the others (MSNBC, Fox, etc) who do not (some, especially Fox, emphatically and blatantly so).

Coastal2,

I'm going to ask nicely. Please, please, I'm begging you with tears in my eyes, cut this crap out:

"…a well deserved reputation for right-wing yellow journalism."

"…especially Fox, emphatically and blatantly so)."

This has absolutely nothing to do with wargaming, and it doesn't even have to do with culture and traditions of the US military, which allegedly this thread was discussing.

This garbage has no place here; all it does is stir up trouble and get us off topic. There are plenty of forums available for just this sort of commentary, but this is not the one.

Please note, in accordance with forum rules, I am not asking you to leave, I'm simply asking you to stop discussing your politics here. I believe there is a forum rule against that as well.

V/R,
Jack

TMP has a sister site The Blue Fez to talk about contentious issues . Ask The Editor to join. I'm more interested in wargaming than being rude to members – fans of FoW & Empire excepted – hence the stifles :-)

@ Just Jack-

Welllll…. Considering the original posting had to do with an article that has since been discredited (as you noted and provided a link.. and thank you for that), and it was in a journal who does have a reputation for agitation, I don't really see a problem here. Admittedly, the second posting (which was a response) was harsh and went too far. And you'll note that I tarred BOTH sides with the same brush; BOTH have been equally at fault on many occasions in these sort of things. And yes, it did have bearing on the posted article; one should know if there is any agendas in play (as in this case) or not…

Coastal2,

I hear you man, but here's my thoughts on the matter:

1. We didn't need the original thread, in my humble opinion is has nothing to do with wargaming.

2. We didn't need the second thread (this one), on the same subject, which, in my humble opinion, has nothing to do with wargaming.

3. We didn't need the inevitable (yes, inevitable) walk down the path from 'what constitutes a US military officer' to 'Blue vs Gray' to 'stain on this nation's honor/ slaveholder/closeted racist accusations,' nothing to do with wargaming.

4. We didn't need the last cherry on top to tell us both sides are bad, but Fox is really, really, really bad.

I'm not arguing whether anyone is right or wrong, I'm just humbly submitting that our miniatures/wargaming didn't need this.

On a side note, since this stuff started I've had an amazing discussion with a few TMPers about Urban Combat (WWII Rules Board), helped out in a discussion for a TMPer trying to decide which scale to go with for WWII (WWII Discussion Board), got some great scenario ideas for French Foreign Legion vs. Islamist Insurgents (Modern Scenarios board), played a game of FFL vs. Insurgents and posted the batrep (Modern BatReps board), read some great WWII batreps and discussed some issues about them and wargaming operations/campaigns (WWII Batreps Board), got some answers about Napoleonic British Cavalry that helped me finish off some troops (Napoleonic Discussion Board), posted pics of those troops (Napoleonic Gallery Board), posted some simple questions about supporting an attack in Napoleonic times, then sat back and watched as fellow TMPers graciously took the time to explain the issue to me (Napoleonic Discussion Board). And that's probably not all, but all I can remember off the top of my head.

Certainly this isn't my forum, but it seems to me that's the kind of stuff that should be discussed on a miniatures/wargaming forum, particularly as there are plenty of other forums to debate politics.

My two cents.

V/R,
Jack

Points taken (and, largely, agreed with). Suggest the matter drop…

"Suggest the matter drop…"

Amen, brother, and have a Merry Christmas.

V/R,
Jack