Posted on 09/10/2005 4:46:12 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
"Outed" by tour own words. LOL!!!
Once again, I'm not a unionist or "DY" and have never made a statement as such....look it up if you like.
It's ok stand. Really.
As you said, nobody is swayed in their opinion of you simply by reading the lies you make up about yourself:)
Your reputation is intact.
LOL!
THAT is FACT.
when you've posted their lies, evasions & hate-FILLED comments, maybe we'll have something more to talk about.
until then, we all know what you are = a cyber-stalker.
free dixie,sw
Hmmmmm.......
No answer to the 1,2,3,5,6 issues huh????
No surprise there stand.
"...maybe we'll have something more to talk about."
Don't flatter yourself stand. I can assure you I don't enjoy talking to you at all.
not even ONE of us here is that DUMB! you CLAIM to be a "trained investigator", so go INVESTIGATE!
you & the rest of "the DY coven" want everyone to think they are JUST PERFECT & all of us "good 'ole rebs" are trash/bigots/liars/fools.
when you "go after them" with the same tenacity as you cyber-stalked me, perhaps you will get a reputation for FAIR PLAY.
as of now your reputation for being NEUTRAL (which you CLAIM to be) & FAIRNESS is "G-O-N-E, GONE"!
to our READERS: when "jaguaretype" set himself up as "the REGULATOR", "the INVESTIGATOR"& a "PARAGON of morals" on FR, he HAD to be seen to be PERFECT AND FAIR to everyone.
on the very first day after he "cyber-stalked" me, his reputation for PERFECTION was deflated, just as one pinprick deflates a balloon. i LOL!
free dixie,sw
Sigh.........read all the words stand......all.
I'm not a DY.
But if anyone can drive a fence sitter away from the Southern view it would be you.
I listed what you wrote in your words. I'm not sure how that encompasses a "cyber-stalk".
So, what about items 1,2,3,5,6?
It'd be refreshing to see you make good on some of your claims instead of just digging deeper.
You are an enigma stand, I just can't figure out why you insist on standing at the bottom and continuing to shovel the earth out from beneath you with more nonsensical claims.
that is your "JOB", now IF you want to maintain your "reputation" as the "investigator" & "arbiter of truth & morals" on FR.(and given that at least 2 of your allegations have been shown by others to be false, you have little in the way of infallibility/believability left. once you set yourself up as "the regulator" as you have, one tiny prick bursts your balloon. yours went "BANG", days ago.)
in point of fact, ALL you did in my case was a "leftist-style" HATCHET JOB &N a "CYBER-stalking".
nothing more & nothing less than that.
we may believe you when you do the same to "mr. spin","x","ditto","modernman", "#3fan", "cvn76", "whisky pap" and all the other HATERS on FR.
free dixie,sw
"that is your "JOB", now IF you want to maintain your "reputation" as the "investigator""
LOL!LOL!
Who exactly do you think you are???
You won't EVER tell me what my "job" is stand.
Your credibility is so low I doubt your pets care what you tell them to do.
"we may believe you when ....."
Who is the "we"?
You and all your various fake/make-believe selves?
Still no answer to 1,2,3,5,6 because they are just more lies.
when you decide to "root out" the HATERS, BIGOTS & RACISTS in the DAMNyankee coven (which given your investigative skills will NOT be difficult!), you might be MORE believable.
as it is, you are now numbered (fairly or not) among the members that never post anything POSITIVE but only do HATCHET JOBS & PERSONAL ATTACKS on other FReepers. since you origionally said that you "went after me" because i was UNFAIR, i find your position ironic, at best.
i'd bet a considerable amount of money that you won't do your "job" on one of the prominent hate-FILLED, arrogantly SELF-righteous, DAMNyankees.
you might remember also my comment about PRICKS & BALLOONS. (i'm sure one of our "good 'ole rebs" will be glad to post every single INCORRECT DETAIL, again. then your credibility will go BANG, again.)
free dixie,sw
"btw, who is to be your "next victim"..."
Let's see.....hmmmmmmm.......how about...............
You!!!!! LOL!
free dixie,sw
Good to see you actually can laugh stand!
And hopefully lighten up a bit.
it's HARD to laugh about them. perhaps you mean i should laugh AT them.
free dixie,sw
Where? There's actually nothing in the OR about the Nashville/Harriet Lane matter, except Fox's report that the Nashville and other merchant ships were laying off the bar "awaiting the results o fthe bombardment."
What I do find in the OR is a letter from Commander Harstene saying that "I have just made out the vessels off. They are the Pawnee, Harriet Lane, Nashville, Atlantic (Baltic), and a merchant schooner. They cannot enter in their vessels. With a good lookout (for a lookout stationed here, and a boat in the channel, together with their fire hulks, which are still floating in a line around Fort Sumter) I think you have no fear of an entrance here."
Sounds to me like it's the rebels who are insuring that the ships are unable to proceed.
Then, of course, there's the gale blowing the whole time, and the heavy seas, and the tricky channel entrance into Charleston, and the fact that there's a major artillery barrage going on. But none of those things have anything to do with the ships waiting off the bar. It's because the Harriet Lane fired a shot across the bow of the Nashville. Fine. Believe what you want. Believe that it makes no difference that the ice schooner was seized before or after the firing on Sumter began. Believe that the rebels firing on the Star of the West months earlier doesn't count as the "first shot of the war." Or the firing on the Rhoda H. Shannon. And speaking of the Rhoda H. Shannon, here's an interesting bit, " When the Shannon was fired upon, the vessel's master raised the American flag thinking he was being asked to show his colors! Continuing into the harbor, more shots were fired, the ship was struck, and it turned back to sea." Hmm. Shots fired, the ships raises its colors and proceeds. Where have I seen that before? Of course, unlike the Harriet Lane, the rebels continued to fire on the ice schooner.
Now, if you want to talk seizures, let's talk about the confederate seizure of the US ships Isabella, Henry Dodge, Washington and others, all long before any expedition to relieve Sumter.
The Vessel fired into at CharlestonFrom the Savannah Republican, April 5
Since copying the article from the Charleston Courier, the vessel fired into from the forts at Morris Island has arrived in our port, and we are enabled to give full particulars of the affair.
The schooner is the H. R. Shannon, Capt. Ments, of Boston, and she was bound for this city with a cargo of ice, consigned to A. Haywood. On Wednesday she was shrouded for many hours in a dense fog, during which she drifted through mistake over the Charleston bar. Soon after the fog lifted, the captain, not knowing his whereabouts, found himself nearly abreast of the fort on Morris island, and while cogitating over his latitude and longitude, he was greeted with a salute from the fort. He immediately ran up his colors -- the stars and stripes -- but that demonstration seemed an unsatisfactory answer to their summons. Several shots (thirty-two's) were fired into her rigging, one passed through his mainsail and another through his topsail. In the midst of this dilemma, not knowing where he was or the object of this hostile demonstration, a boat from Fort Sumter came to his relief, and being made acquainted with the facts, he lost no time in putting to sea.
The schooner suffered no material damage from the shots, though one of them came uncomfortably near the head of one of the crew. Capt. Ments thinks there is no mistake about the Morris island boys being excellent marksmen.
Perhaps you are forgetting about the US soldiers who on December 26, 1860, fought the captain of a schooner transporting women and supplies to Fort Johnson in Charleston Harbor, overcame him, and took his ship to Fort Sumter.
Interesting. Especially considering that Ft. Johnson wasn't actually occupied by the South Carolinians until January 2, 1861, according to the OR. Were the women being sent to capture it?
Do you have any other information on this incident? I can't find anything in the OR (or anyplace else) about it.
The information comes from E. Milby Burton's book The Siege of Charleston 1861-1865, pages 9-11 of the paperback version. It is the only place I have seen it.
On the afternoon of December 26, the schooners with the women and children left the dock at Moultrie under the command of Lieutenant Hall. Not until then did Major Anderson reveal his plan. He instructed Hall to delay unloading his personnel and cargo under the pretext of finding suitable quarters at Fort Johnson. When he heard two guns, Hall was to come at once to Sumter.
... When the last man from Moultrie was on Sumter, the two guns were fired, signaling recall of the schooners waiting at Fort Johnson with the women, children, and supplies aboard. The captain of one of the schooners, realizing that he had been duped, put up a fight and had to be overcome by force.
You can rest assured that I don't plan to overcome my cab driver by force and take his cab where he had not contracted to go.
Here are some comments on the back cover of Burton's book:
"Burton's book will appeal to armchair tacticians interested in ironclads, torpedoes, submarines, and stories of 'courage and honor.' Historians familiar with the major events of the Civil War will welcome this comprehensive and generously documented book ..." [Journal of American History]
"The author, the director of the Charleston Museum and a retired naval officer, has brought together, mainly from original sources, more information on the siege than is to be found elsewhere." [American Historical Review]
I purchased my copy of the book in Charleston at the Park Service bookstore at the dock where boats depart for Fort Sumter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.