Posted on 07/30/2009 4:48:44 PM PDT by chessplayer
My neighbor’s just graduated high school kids are Beatles freaks with a reasonable seasoning of Pink Floyd. Their music has a seamless quality to it that cuts across generational lines.
I’m a late boomer too and my first memory is my brother and sister singing “hard days night” in the backyard one eve in 1963. Sis was enraptured by them, bro just followed along and I thought that’s the way music was supposed to be until bro migrated into Cream, Vanilla Fudge, CCR, Led Zep, Doors, Frank Zappa, Allmans, etc. which led me to all the classic 70’s rock bands.
Disco was an irritating rash for a while.
Anyone can find one or two people who are into a certain kind of music.
That doesn’t make the music “genius”.
Hell, at my DH’s workplace, all the young adults are into disco! I was shocked! I called myself the “Disco Queen” at a wedding a couple years ago, just kidding around and suddenly I had tons of questions about the 70’s!
I’m sure there are all kinds.
Me too !
“The Beatles were the end all be all to the 1953 through 1957 crowd. (although really the later part of that group were all into Jazz) And they’ll be gone or drooling soon.”
Your nasty little post 23 is about age (demographics) and my post 29 is correcting you about age (demographics).
The chart in 29 goes with the paragraph above it and the link that I supplied, the Beatles are famous for covering a huge demographic by age which you didn’t know.
It has everything to do with my conversation, it is you that keeps trying to get off track.
>>The chart in 29 goes with the paragraph above it and the link that I supplied, the Beatles are famous for covering a huge demographic by age which you didn’t know.<<
Seriously, you need not to take things so personally. That’s what you accused me of. When one is conversing, one needs to look at both sides of the conversation. You responded to Post 4. It really wasn’t to you, but you chose to do it. So, I responded from my pings and wasn’t in on your conversations with others. You opened up a reply to me. Our conversation really didn’t include what you were writing to others.
Did you see that I’m a boomer too? I’ll be gone or drooling soon myself. All of us die. You can find many a Frank Sinatra fan nowadays. They don’t influence society. Soon enough, there won’t be the huge amount of people who think that the Beatles are the end all be all of society. That happens with everyone.
There may be fans of a group. However, history sees them in a different light.
I don’t care about how history sees the Beatles, you were way off base in your post 23 and your claim of the nonsensical narrowness of the Beatle demographic .
It was an absurd post, written purely from your own feelings but it flies in the face of reality and the famously wide ranging age appeal of the Beatles.
Seriously, “The Beatles were the end all be all to the 1953 through 1957 crowd.” “Sarah and I, who are the same age, are the END of the boomers. None of us were into the Beatles.”
Those are ridiculous claims.
Post 29 -
“I’m constantly amazed at how angry some freepers are about things that they shouldn’t be taking so personally.”
And I’m ridiculous?
Bu-bye!
I thought you were arguing about leftist professors demanding that students demonstrate, but instead you are arguing about something else entirely, about the possibility of being drafted and sent to Vietnam to die.
So I will address that, instead of refuting what I originally thought you were arguing against. In future, it would help to specify when you are calling someone a liar. Unless you are just being argumentative.
Statistically, losing a draft deferment only meant someone was eligible for being drafted. Of those, the higher numbers of the draft lottery were most at risk of being drafted. Those that were drafted had to pass induction, and some were rejected for medical incapability. Draftees only “rounded out” military needs, because of voluntary enlistment.
Once basic training was successfully completed, branch assignments were issued. The ratio of combat support and combat service support personnel to combat personnel during Vietnam was about 13:1. No matter what branch assignment, the majority of personnel were assigned to service in CONUS, Europe and non-Vietnam Asia.
After arrival in Vietnam, assignment of combat branched personnel to forward units was based on unit need. Since there were many instances of reenlistment of personnel on a “remain in unit” basis, each reenlistment would bump a replacement from that unit. And of those forward deployed units, relatively few were engaged in heavy combat at any given time.
Therefore, the odds of any given college student, “losing their deferment, being sent to Vietnam, and dying”, were quite small.
The flip side of the statistics were the actual casualty rates. All numbers from the National Archives:
58,000 dead plus 2,000 missing, about 60,000 total killed in 10 years.
39,000, or about 2/3rds of these were in a three year period of 1967 through 1969.
In 1967, 480,000 personnel were deployed in theater. There were 11,153 killed. 2.3% chance of being killed.
In 1968, 512,000 personnel were deployed in theater. There were 16,592 killed. 3.2% chance of being killed.
In 1969, 543,000 personnel were deployed in theater, the largest number for any year of the war, out of 3,000,000 total active duty personnel. There were 11,616 killed. 2.1% chance of being killed.
So, out of the 1/6th of the active duty US military deployed to Vietnam, in 1968, the bloodiest year of the war, there was still only a 3.2% chance of getting killed.
Out of the active duty military as a whole, a .55% chance of being killed in Vietnam. Half a percent chance.
And yet, according to the MSM, and many in academia, if a student failed in school, they would lose their draft deferment, and be sent to Vietnam to die.
This was a lie. And one that students of that period have suffered under then and even now. They were told, believed then, as many still believe today, that their lives were at great risk.
No. Curtis LeMay did.
No I'm not, I made it clear in post 33.
"Though the odds were quite small of being drafted, being sent to Vietnam, and dying, students were threatened that if they *didn’t* protest against the war, their professors would fail them, they would lose their draft deferment, be drafted, sent to Vietnam, and die."
Did you actually see any professors saying that? I never did.
33 posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:34:03 PM by ansel12
You were making that up about what professors were saying and that is what I was calling you on. Rather than simply saying that you made that part up you keep posting unrelated, distracting, diversions.
Thanks for the little distracting history lesson, as someone that was in the first draft lottery, fought the draft for two years and had a lot of dealings with the draft resistance community, won a permanent deferment and then enlisted in the army and asked for jump school shortly after I had defeated the draft board (as planned), I do remember that stuff pretty well already.
By the way high numbers meant you were safe.
Evidently.
Okay, as to your first point, I said to the effect that I knew professors from that time who were *not* radicals, and when talking to them about a notorious local radical professor, *they* told me about the actions of other radical professors.
So, *your* evidence is that because you didn’t personally see it, it didn’t exist. *My* evidence, while indeed secondhand, is from peers of the radical professors. As such, *I* consider it reliable.
And I am so happy for you that you first dodged the draft, then enlisted, and feel both guilty and sanctimonious about it. Good for you.
By the way, did you get Airborne qualified, and if so, what was your branch MOS?
“Taxman” written by George Harrison was definitely a communistic anthem.....
The professors never did what you claimed and I was never a draft dodger, I was a draft resister and I am very proud of that so you are lying again by making things up. Let me make it very clear I took a strong stand about the draft, it is my style and if my feelings were the same I would be doing the exact same thing, having principles is a trait that some conservatives have.
You lied about the professors and tried to pass it off as history and you refuse to just acknowledge that you got carried away although judging by the way you tried to rewrite my biography I am starting to think that you are just a guy that likes to make things up.
Initially on graduation my MOS was 13A1P since FDC bored me to tears and I had asked for a transfer to Field Artillery, were you even in college during the draft?
So you weren’t a “draft dodger”, but a “draft resistor”. Uh-huh.
You seem to have a very liberal idea about what lying is, as well.
In any event, at this point, I see little purpose to further discussion, “Airborne cannon-cocker.” Ta.
When one stands up and fights the draft head on and faces the system and the consequences as a matter of principle then that is resisting, it takes courage to be alone and to stand up up against the government, have you ever tried it?
Draft dodging, evading, leaving the country, that is all a different thing, how old are you?
Your posts are slippery, evasive and snarky, but my original point stands you seem to play loose with truth.
You made up that little professor/student history.
I look at how you post on other threads, and am convinced you are nothing more than a contentious dork. I want nothing more to do with you, whatever you claim to be.
I also notice that you won’t answer the simplest questions such as were you in college during the draft.
“Sis was enraptured by them,”
Oh, oh. That makes her a commie according to some on here.
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.