Replies

If I were you, I wouldn't bother with Dirtboy's comments.

You're right, especially when he gets help from a higher power, removing my responses to his flames. You can't call it a flame war, when one side is disarmed.

I admire your whole posting...and responses.

Thanks.

I was taken by Patton's theory to avoid foxhole digging...but rather continue moving foward. (I believe this came from someone else but your post engendered it.)

Me, too. I'll have to study up on that, since he's the only general I've heard of espousing that idea. Maybe it depends on the battlefield leader -- with the right guy, the troops go psycho and run over the opposition, but with the wrong guy, they get shot to pieces. On the other hand, you have the Civil War, where it practically became a matter of who had more bodies to throw at the enemy.

You're right, especially when he gets help from a higher power, removing my responses to his flames.

Gee, you only spewed an insult, used vulgarity and dragged a dispute from one old thread into this one. That's THREE violations of the posting guidelines. Yet I'm the heavy.

I've got a hint - if you keep your posts on the up-and-up, they won't get pulled! Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

On the other hand, you have the Civil War, where it practically became a matter of who had more bodies to throw at the enemy.

See the exploits of Confederate General *Wild* Patrick Cleburne, both in the attack and defending. asside from the final attack ordered by Hood at Franklin in which Cleburne and most of his men were killed in a suicidal charge against dug-in troops, his operations were a textbook example of the way to do it.

...with the right guy, the troops go psycho and run over the opposition, but with the wrong guy, they get shot to pieces.

Ah yes. And from the same conflict, that would be Confederate general and cavalryman Nathan Bedford Forrest, fond of putting the scare into! those opposing him, and said by Lee to be his best commander, though the two men never met. Cleburne and Forrest were a bit more than passing acquaintences, though, and their conversations must have been something to have been a part of.

Two very different men, two differing ways of doing things. Same excellent results.