Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

Just now, A. P. Hill said:

Well yes of course there are errors, as there are in just about everything or anything you can find on the ACW.  The point being, I said it was one of my preferred sources, not my only one. :P

And if anyone knows about the trickiness of studying this over an extended time, I'd be one of those.  So I'll believe myself ... then I'll believe you.

smiley_salute.gif

I thought you meant it was your only one :P lol my bad. 

Still an amazing source though! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have historical attack question- are there many (or any) examples of a brigade-sized unit making multiple unsuccessful charges in a given battle?  This question just occurred to me after posting in the shattered soldiers thread- I think units behave too heroically.

Edited by Fred Sanford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:

I just tried to write you a PM but the damn thing just up and disappeared.   :wacko:

PM me? Whatever for, my good sir? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Fred Sanford said:

I have historical attack question- are there many (or any) examples of a brigade-sized unit making multiple unsuccessful charges in a given battle?  This question just occurred to me after posting in the shattered soldiers thread- I think units behave too heroically.

Yup that kind of thing happened, but not often if said brigade took extreme casualties on the first effort.  I can't really think of many specific ones right now, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fred Sanford said:

Wow. I never knew that Abraham Lincoln used Viking Rune magic. You can see here that he has summoned Jormungandr the World Serpent to crush the Confederacy. A risky strategy since he represents Ragnarok but a spectacular one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Keepbro said:

I have a question - how many snakes did the Anaconda plan necessitate for its implementation? 

I'm guessing that, what with the entire South being on the coast and all and the number of rivers, ports and coastal villages that it must have needed a serious shit ton of snakes to blockade the South?

Also why didn't the rebels develop some form of anti-snake ship? Or were the anacondas really that big?

Finally - what happened to all the snakes after the war? Were they all male snakes so as to prevent an ecological catastrophe or were they hunted for food or did they just slink into the Everglades?

How many Snakes did it take? 

Well, the Union had 175,000 troops attached to the Department of the Tennessee during the Seige of Vicksburg, so at least that many. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Aetius said:

further research indicates I'm ... really confused about what happened in New York and New Jersey.

Not shocking. The Political Machines of New York and New Jersey were powers unto themselves. Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall's relationship with the Five Points is more than just a Leonardo DiCaprio movie. 

'Vote early and vote often' is NOT a new slogan. 

Besides, Roscoe Conkling was waaaaay too busy trying to get corporations the same status as a human being; for those who think the Fourteenth Amendment actually involves human beings, not 'equal protection under the law' for the railroads and Corporate America. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Oh! I dunno, I occasionally do weird shit like that!

;)

Well now I'm just curious ;). What did you wish to tell me lol :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiple unsuccessful charges by a single Brigade - Law/Sheffield's Brigade at little round top? Didn't the Alabamans make two unsuccessful attacks (or were these simply separate Regimental attacks?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to offer to adjudicate any debates so as to ensure fairness. Might I also suggest that some form of humiliation be suggested for the losing debater? I suggest posting a video of them being paddled on the buttocks. Of course to ensure that competing debaters hold up their end of the bargain they will need to email me a video of themselves being paddled before the debate. I will post only the losers video. Otherwise they may back out of the forfeit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would we know that the one being paddled in the video is actually the real debater though ? I assume we'd have to require that the debater declares on his honor that this is truly him speaking. Also we would need two cameras (front and back) to be sure they're not using someone else's butt during the actual paddling.

If we have to get professional we might as well go the extra mile here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Col_Kelly said:

How would we know that the one being paddled in the video is actually the real debater though ? I assume we'd have to require that the debater declares on his honor that this is truly him speaking. Also we would need two cameras to be sure they're not using someone else's butt during the actual paddling.

If we have to get professional we might as well go the extra mile here.

Good point.... have to think on that. Maybe if I insist that the video be each debater holding up his passport to the screen before being paddled. But then we can't be sure that the person being paddled is the actual forum member unless we can prove somehow through online receipts and steam profiles. 

 

The other problem is that debates soon become multi debates as multiple people start pitching in on one side or the other. Such a mass debate soon becomes rowdy and uncontrollable unless everyone agrees to be paddled before hand. 

 

 

 

Heh heh...... Mass debate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Col_Kelly said:

How would we know that the one being paddled in the video is actually the real debater though ? I assume we'd have to require that the debater declares on his honor that this is truly him speaking. Also we would need two cameras (front and back) to be sure they're not using someone else's butt during the actual paddling.

If we have to get professional we might as well go the extra mile here.

The French take their paddling seriously, it seems . . . . ;)

But, if the professional you procure is hot, work some of that footage into your next Youtube vid. Irene Adler, perhaps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2017 at 6:07 PM, 1stvermont said:

I saw i was referenced thought i wouldsay hi.  Mr. Mercanto, you are so clearly very smart and correct, you have told us many times and have made it clear anyone who does not agree you are so smart and correct is anti intellectual and must be using poor sources. I would like to offer you a 1v1 debate. There are multiple forums this can happen I suggest the fight club here

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/

This is very free and open where the debate can have full freedom and length. Or a smaller version debate found here

http://www.debate.org/

We can make the rule of only original sources can be used. I would love to debate many topics among them the legality of secession in 1860, the causes of southern secession, subjects on Lincoln  and any subject on my other thread that you have referenced.  Here is another promise to try and prevent you from rejecting [as we both know you will], any non original source or non peer reviewed source, will be omitted and not counted.

 

Please pm me as i will not be keeping up with this thread. I rarely come to this forum anymore.  Good day sir.

I never actually called myself "very smart." I think its rather fascinating that you continue to claim I have...Were I an armchair psychologist, I might venture to guess that this was a reflection of feelings of intellectual inferiority on your part. If our debate left you feeling that way, might I suggest that it had something to do with the fact that you boldly asserted poor arguments to a serious student of a subject you have not sufficiently researched. I'm not sure that your choice to do so is my fault. 

This is the last of several debate requests you have sent me, accompanied once again by your rather petty (and illuminating) insults concerning your perception of my egotism. As such, I am going to be more forthcoming in my response, as I want this to be clear.

My answer remains the same as it was before. No. To be honest, the challenge seems strange to me. We already debated on this forum, wherein practically every reader who commented did so in favour of myself. Even individuals who were inclined to your perspective expressed dissatisfaction in your conduct and presentation. This did little to prevent you from declaring yourself the winner. I'm not sure how your proposed forums would be any different, and based on our previous experience, I have every reason to believe that you will ignore a judgement in my favour there as you did here. 


Not everyone that disagrees with me is anti-intellectual. Not everyone who disagrees with me uses poor sources. People who dismiss evidence because they claim the author "is a Marxist" or who dismiss evidence without explaining why at all, are anti-intellectual. People who ignore evidence that disagrees with them, and advance evidence without interrogating what that evidence is or whether it works use poor evidence. 

You had plenty of chances to debate with me, and to be as forthcoming as I can be, I was not impressed with your conduct or your depth of analysis. I do not enjoy watching my serious research and passion dismissed by individuals who have very little real evidence to argue. I do not enjoy having to explain the same basic elements of the Civil War over, and over, and over again. Its frustrating, and above all, its boring. 

Let me be clear. My passion is studying history and the war. Learning its complexities and details, intellectually challenging myself to strive for a greater mastery of the subject. I do not like petty debates, and I am not obsessed with validation by winning said petty debates. I also know that debates with ideologues who see the facts as secondary to their views are exhausting. 

My goal was to disprove the misleading and highly problematic arguments you advanced in your thread. I did that to my satisfaction. I did this not because I felt that your positions were strong or well researched (they were not remotely either). I did it because hitherto your post, my encounters with this forum had been relatively free of Lost Cause fiction and Neo-Confederate idiation. I wanted to keep it that way. 

To be honest, there was not a single point you raised that I had not heard elsewhere, with the exception of claiming that the Civil War didn't free a single slave, which I must admit was one of the more delusional things I have ever read (it was also the point where I realised that facts really didn't influence your arguments or opinions). You offer me no adequate incentive to go to the trouble of being so bored, and to the trouble of composing responses to your rants (I'm reluctant to call them arguments in the academic sense). While you cut and paste your responses, drawing upon sources you have a limited understanding of, I in turn put a substantial amount of effort in my answers. I have a deep love and respect of this subject, and when I discuss it, I insist on holding myself to a certain standard. As someone who respects the readers and participants of a discussion, one of these standards includes explaining why I dismiss any given piece of evidence. These dismissals require a great deal of elucidation and effort to explain, however I believe that without explanation, such dismissal is anti-intellectual.  Coupled with the constant need to correct the staggering number of errors in your copy/paste text, you are essentially asking me for several hours of work, all of which you intend to completely dismiss without any effort to explain why. This anti-intellectual behaviour is insulting and extremely disrespectful. During our debate, I gave you several opportunities to change this behaviour, you chose not to.

Col_Kelly recently challenged me on this thread. Take a look at what he did. He was respectful to a fault. His disagreement with me was intelligent and well evidenced. We briefly debated. During the debate, he was always eager to hear and consider what I had to say. Rather then dismissing my evidence, he acknowledged it and responded to it directly and thoughtfully. Col_Kelly made excellent and thought provoking points, and as such really challenged me to consider the merits of my position. It was a wonderful exchange. Above all, in this particular debate, by the end my argument appeared to have the preponderance of evidence, Col_Kelly was extremely gracious and stated that I had proved my point. We then moved on to another exciting topic. This is how an intellectual debate is conducted. For Col_Kelly, our discussion was not about proving his intelligence, or ideology, or how intelligent he is (he is considerably intelligent, for the record). For Col_Kelly, this was about challenging ideas about the Civil War, and reciprocating thoughts and interpretations on the subject. It was not about being right, it was about learning, and I look forward to further discussions (and debates) with him. Had you conducted yourself like this, I would be happy to discuss the Civil War with you further. You did not conduct yourself in that matter, and as such I do not feel inclined to give you any more of my time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Keepbro said:

I'd like to offer to adjudicate any debates so as to ensure fairness. Might I also suggest that some form of humiliation be suggested for the losing debater? I suggest posting a video of them being paddled on the buttocks. Of course to ensure that competing debaters hold up their end of the bargain they will need to email me a video of themselves being paddled before the debate. I will post only the losers video. Otherwise they may back out of the forfeit. 

 

12 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:

How would we know that the one being paddled in the video is actually the real debater though ? I assume we'd have to require that the debater declares on his honor that this is truly him speaking. Also we would need two cameras (front and back) to be sure they're not using someone else's butt during the actual paddling.

If we have to get professional we might as well go the extra mile here.

 

12 hours ago, Keepbro said:

Good point.... have to think on that. Maybe if I insist that the video be each debater holding up his passport to the screen before being paddled. But then we can't be sure that the person being paddled is the actual forum member unless we can prove somehow through online receipts and steam profiles. 

 

The other problem is that debates soon become multi debates as multiple people start pitching in on one side or the other. Such a mass debate soon becomes rowdy and uncontrollable unless everyone agrees to be paddled before hand. 

 

 

 

Heh heh...... Mass debate. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

The French take their paddling seriously, it seems . . . . ;)

But, if the professional you procure is hot, work some of that footage into your next Youtube vid. Irene Adler, perhaps. 


....











This is the best thread in the forum. 

I love it.










 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2017 at 4:10 PM, Squadron HQ said:

Multiple unsuccessful charges by a single Brigade - Law/Sheffield's Brigade at little round top? Didn't the Alabamans make two unsuccessful attacks (or were these simply separate Regimental attacks?)

Great example! 

They were brigade attacks (well technically it was portions of two brigades acting as a crack brigade, but I digress). Of course things always get a bit separated at a regimental level, but it was co-ordinated at a brigade level by Colonel Oates. There are plenty of other such examples, I'm just drawing a blank on specifics atm. Just take my word for it? :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

I never actually called myself "very smart." I think its rather fascinating that you continue to claim I have...Were I an armchair psychologist, I might venture to guess that this was a reflection of feelings of intellectual inferiority on your part. If our debate left you feeling that way, might I suggest that it had something to do with the fact that you boldly asserted poor arguments to a serious student of a subject you have not sufficiently researched. I'm not sure that your choice to do so is my fault. 

This is the last of several debate requests you have sent me, accompanied once again by your rather petty (and illuminating) insults concerning your perception of my egotism. As such, I am going to be more forthcoming in my response, as I want this to be clear.

My answer remains the same as it was before. No. To be honest, the challenge seems strange to me. We already debated on this forum, wherein practically every reader who commented did so in favour of myself. Even individuals who were inclined to your perspective expressed dissatisfaction in your conduct and presentation. This did little to prevent you from declaring yourself the winner. I'm not sure how your proposed forums would be any different, and based on our previous experience, I have every reason to believe that you will ignore a judgement in my favour there as you did here. 


Not everyone that disagrees with me is anti-intellectual. Not everyone who disagrees with me uses poor sources. People who dismiss evidence because they claim the author "is a Marxist" or who dismiss evidence without explaining why at all, are anti-intellectual. People who ignore evidence that disagrees with them, and advance evidence without interrogating what that evidence is or whether it works use poor evidence. 

You had plenty of chances to debate with me, and to be as forthcoming as I can be, I was not impressed with your conduct or your depth of analysis. I do not enjoy watching my serious research and passion dismissed by individuals who have very little real evidence to argue. I do not enjoy having to explain the same basic elements of the Civil War over, and over, and over again. Its frustrating, and above all, its boring. 

Let me be clear. My passion is studying history and the war. Learning its complexities and details, intellectually challenging myself to strive for a greater mastery of the subject. I do not like petty debates, and I am not obsessed with validation by winning said petty debates. I also know that debates with ideologues who see the facts as secondary to their views are exhausting. 

My goal was to disprove the misleading and highly problematic arguments you advanced in your thread. I did that to my satisfaction. I did this not because I felt that your positions were strong or well researched (they were not remotely either). I did it because hitherto your post, my encounters with this forum had been relatively free of Lost Cause fiction and Neo-Confederate idiation. I wanted to keep it that way. 

To be honest, there was not a single point you raised that I had not heard elsewhere, with the exception of claiming that the Civil War didn't free a single slave, which I must admit was one of the more delusional things I have ever read (it was also the point where I realised that facts really didn't influence your arguments or opinions). You offer me no adequate incentive to go to the trouble of being so bored, and to the trouble of composing responses to your rants (I'm reluctant to call them arguments in the academic sense). While you cut and paste your responses, drawing upon sources you have a limited understanding of, I in turn put a substantial amount of effort in my answers. I have a deep love and respect of this subject, and when I discuss it, I insist on holding myself to a certain standard. As someone who respects the readers and participants of a discussion, one of these standards includes explaining why I dismiss any given piece of evidence. These dismissals require a great deal of elucidation and effort to explain, however I believe that without explanation, such dismissal is anti-intellectual.  Coupled with the constant need to correct the staggering number of errors in your copy/paste text, you are essentially asking me for several hours of work, all of which you intend to completely dismiss without any effort to explain why. This anti-intellectual behaviour is insulting and extremely disrespectful. During our debate, I gave you several opportunities to change this behaviour, you chose not to.

Col_Kelly recently challenged me on this thread. Take a look at what he did. He was respectful to a fault. His disagreement with me was intelligent and well evidenced. We briefly debated. During the debate, he was always eager to hear and consider what I had to say. Rather then dismissing my evidence, he acknowledged it and responded to it directly and thoughtfully. Col_Kelly made excellent and thought provoking points, and as such really challenged me to consider the merits of my position. It was a wonderful exchange. Above all, in this particular debate, by the end my argument appeared to have the preponderance of evidence, Col_Kelly was extremely gracious and stated that I had proved my point. We then moved on to another exciting topic. This is how an intellectual debate is conducted. For Col_Kelly, our discussion was not about proving his intelligence, or ideology, or how intelligent he is (he is considerably intelligent, for the record). For Col_Kelly, this was about challenging ideas about the Civil War, and reciprocating thoughts and interpretations on the subject. It was not about being right, it was about learning, and I look forward to further discussions (and debates) with him. Had you conducted yourself like this, I would be happy to discuss the Civil War with you further. You did not conduct yourself in that matter, and as such I do not feel inclined to give you any more of my time.

 

He wants to move the venue for this conversation? 

Does he have a few thugs in an alley who will beat you verbally with your own sentences? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

He wants to move the venue for this conversation? 

Does he have a few thugs in an alley who will beat you verbally with your own sentences? 

Lmao! Hmmm possibly...hold my rum and my nerd glasses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if I set the debate to be something something neutral?

I would like to propose as neutral adjudicatoreferee that the debate topic be..........

 

Civil War Beards and how they affected the War effort for both sides. 

Now I want a nice debate. I will permit use of Photoshop for the express purpose of doctoring photos only by way of removing beards from old timer pics. 

I want to see clearly referenced articles by Civil War historians but, and this is important, they must have beards or at least 2 day growth before being accepted as source. Solo Mustaches are not acceptable unless they are long enough in length to reach beneath the chin. Woman with beards will be acceptable sources too. 

Forum members will vote to decide the winner but only if they have beards. 

Finally any debater found playing Mumford and Sons will be automatically disqualified and will be shaved. 

Edited by Keepbro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's clear that the evidence is showing that the Union won because of the amount of neck hair they grew. I think the Confederacy put a great deal of emphasis on chin hair and that whilst tactically fearsome in the initial stages of the war, it would become more and more of a hindrance when the long term attritional powers of union neck hair was allowed to become more and more of a factor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×