Read the Book Before You Comment

[R. Alex Raines]

Settle down, there Major-General. Was only making a joke, too. (The run on sentence was a mistake in grammar.) I hope you read all my posts within the context, because my post, though not written with perfect syntax, related to the original post.

Very respectfully, your ob't srv't

You may want to take a small chillax pill as well. I am fairly confident he wasn't knocking your grammar or syntax.

 

[Boopsie]

No worries, but I'll end with this. I came across that particular video, and really never heard any of those "statistics" on the ACW like those before. It happened to relate to that post I was reading a bit, so I thought I'd put it out there to get peoples views on it. I'm not knocking anyone, you know it's all good. Still, I really wanted to know what others thought because it is a compelling viewpoint, albeit ad nauseum for veterans maybe, but all newer to me. I appreciate this forum, and it helps me see multiple perspectives.

 

[R. Alex Raines]

No worries, but I'll end with this. I came across the that video, and really never heard any of those "statistics" on the AMC like those before. It happened to relate a bit, so I thought I'd put it out there to get peoples views on it. I'm not knocking anyone, you know it's all good. Still, I really wanted to know what others thought because it is a compelling viewpoint, albeit ad nauseum for veterans maybe, but all newer to me. I appreciate this forum, and it helps me see multiple perspectives.

What you may want to do is spend some time in the archives researching old threads about how to evaluate sources because, to be honest, it is not a compelling viewpoint. Instead, it's a bunch of Lost Cause dead horses.

 

[rpkennedy]

I don't get it. The makers of the video can't spell "which" correctly but used "their" properly. That was pretty much the only correct part of the video, though.

R

 

[R. Alex Raines]

I don't get it. The makers of the video can't spell "which" correctly but used "their" properly. That was pretty much the only correct part of the video, though.

R

Is there any chance this is parody?

 

[rpkennedy]

Is there any chance this is parody?

No, it's from a neo-Confederate **** group.

Which makes it funnier than a straight parody.

R

 

[R. Alex Raines]

No, it's from a neo-Confederate **** group.

Which makes it funnier than a straight parody.

R

See, I respectfully disagree. The idea that those folks can remember to breath is funny. Everything beyond that is extremely frustrating and tends to disprove the existence of a just creator.

 

[Henry Whitworth]

I just picked up a book entitled

"Stalin's Squirrels"

The Time-Travelling Communist Rodents that betrayed Lee at Gettysburg."

Now I'm not saying it's ALL exactly on the money, but unless you've read the book, kindly keep your baseless opinions to yourself.

 

[rpkennedy]

See, I respectfully disagree. The idea that those folks can remember to breath is funny. Everything beyond that is extremely frustrating and tends to disprove the existence of a just creator.

It's funny because they want to be taken seriously and spread the true story but can't even spell simple words or form cogent sentences.

My 9 year old could write (and spell) rings around the person who made that video.

R

 

[Jamieva]

Figures

Look if someone wants their video taken seriously then basic spelling and grammar is a must. If you cannot spell multiple words correctly in a 3 minute video, even with the benefit of spell check, then I give zero credence to what you have to say. Zero.

 

[CSA Today]

For books like this, one doesn't need to read it to know what it says. Like Mark Jenkins said, one doesn't need to taste garbage to know that it's garbage.

R

I know the feeling, my reaction when someone recommends that I something by Brooks Simpson, Edward Bonekemper, or Kevin Levin.

 

[Poor Sharecropper's Son]

I see from the spelling and grammar on the very first few frames of the video that the South went to war to obtain a 5th grade education. Obviously, they lost that one too

To their credit they did correctly add 6% and 94% at least

 

[Allie]

To their credit they did correctly add 6% and 94% at least

Yeah -'would probably be even better if they had some source for those numbers rather than picking them out of a hat!

No worries, but I'll end with this. I came across that particular video, and really never heard any of those "statistics" on the ACW like those before. It happened to relate to that post I was reading a bit, so I thought I'd put it out there to get peoples views on it. I'm not knocking anyone, you know it's all good. Still, I really wanted to know what others thought because it is a compelling viewpoint, albeit ad nauseum for veterans maybe, but all newer to me. I appreciate this forum, and it helps me see multiple perspectives.

Thanks for posting. Your perspective is valuable in calling attention to how someone unfamiliar with the scholarship views such a video. It's alarming that anyone found this viewpoint compelling, because the facts in the video are complete fabrications, and the conclusions don't follow logically from even the fabricated facts.

For example, the truth is that depending on which state, between a quarter to half of people in the Confederate states belonged to households which owned slaves. In some locations such as Amelia county in Virginia, ninety percent of households owned slaves. Overall, about a third of Confederates came from slave holding households.

The information on the tariff is also incorrect. It was signed by President Buchanan, not Lincoln, and it was only possible to get it passed because several states had already withdrawn their senators from Congress and seceded.

Could you tell us why you found the video compelling and what your first reactions to it were? I notice that one of your reactions was to ask here in hopes of getting expert opinions, which is a good thing.

The scary thing is that another viewer with similar reactions might do a slightly different Google search and wind up on a forum run by heritage groups with a hidden **** agenda - that hypothetical person would think they had gotten a variety of opinions, when in fact they had stumbled into an echo chamber.

 

[rpkennedy]

I know the feeling, my reaction when someone recommends that I something by Brooks Simpson, Edward Bonekemper, or Kevin Levin.

I'm sure you do.

R

 

[Bob171]

I just picked up a book entitled

"Stalin's Squirrels"

The Time-Travelling Communist Rodents that betrayed Lee at Gettysburg."

Now I'm not saying it's ALL exactly on the money, but unless you've read the book, kindly keep your baseless opinions to yourself.

I know that author; he wrote "Hitler's Hamsters". A very compelling read. His thesis is that the Nazi's attempt to change the events of 1917 Russia resulted in them actually losing the First World War.

 

[1SGDan]

Read the Book Before You Comment

I can tell **** by the smell I don't have to taste it.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I know the feeling, my reaction when someone recommends that I something by Brooks Simpson, Edward Bonekemper, or Kevin Levin.

Precisely what I expected you to say.....

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

Settle down, there Major-General. Was only making a joke, too. (The run on sentence was a mistake in grammar.) I hope you read all my posts within the context, because my post, though not written with perfect syntax, related to the original post.

Relax, Boopsie - what run-on sentence?

I see that Jamie-va pointed out a run-on sentence in the video at 2m 37s . . . did you mistake that as a comment on something you had written?

I read all posts in a thread and I did not notice any errors in yours (nor would I comment if I had). The content was more interesting.

True, I had not realized your (otherwise valid) comment was a joke, so thought I'd best make my intentions clear.

Cheers!

 

[CSA Today]

Precisely what I expected you to say.....

Credit it, in part, to your blithe commentary from post# 68: "I have no reason to waste a single moment reading more trite Lost Cause dreck and neo-Confederate BS, thank you very much. If you want to waste your time, that's your business. But for me: thanks, but no thanks."

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Credit it, in part, to your blithe commentary from post# 68: "I have no reason to waste a single moment reading more trite Lost Cause dreck and neo-Confederate BS, thank you very much. If you want to waste your time, that's your business. But for me: thanks, but no thanks."

Exactly. Because that garbage is not history. It's spin and it's an attempt to make the inexcusable excusable. My life is too busy and my days too short to waste even a single moment on such garbage.

***edited by jgg*** as violation of policy