What Lee Thought About the Lost Orders

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Get back to us when you figure out who it was that snuck that "fake" August 6 letter into the OR that was never sent or received. Talk about "no coherent argument".

'Arguments' that wouldn't survive a minute under the disciplines of a law court are sometimes the very essence of the endless loops found in discussion sites.
Round and round and round we go.....

And like a carousel, while colorful and distracting and sometimes even entertaining, eventually it's time to get off.

On to other threads.....
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
'Arguments' that wouldn't survive a minute under the disciplines of a law court are sometimes the very essence of the endless loops found in discussion sites.
Round and round and round we go.....
Indeed. Given that Belfoured conceded the principle days ago, one wonders why this is continuing.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Indeed. Given that Belfoured conceded the principle days ago, one wonders why this is continuing.
Really - try harder, man. And let us in on who pulled off that conspiracy regarding the "fake" August 6 letter from Halleck that turned up in the OR. Inquiring minds want to know ....
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
'Arguments' that wouldn't survive a minute under the disciplines of a law court are sometimes the very essence of the endless loops found in discussion sites.
Round and round and round we go.....

And like a carousel, while colorful and distracting and sometimes even entertaining, eventually it's time to get off.

On to other threads.....
You are emphatically correct on "time to get off". As always happens, this has spiraled into nonsense.
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Really - try harder, man. And let us in on who pulled off that conspiracy regarding the "fake" August 6 letter from Halleck that turned up in the OR. Inquiring minds want to know ....
No need to worry about the insertion of a "fake" in the OR. The letter was published in the New York Times on December 4, 1862, Page 2.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
No need to worry about the insertion of a "fake" in the OR. The letter was published in the New York Times on December 4, 1862, Page 2.
Well, how about that. And we've never gotten an "explanation" of what Mac was referring to in his August 8 PM to Ellen in which he mentions that he had just received "another letter" from Halleck. As I indicated, I've been through this exercise in another lengthy thread which has elicited the same "crickets" response.
 
Top