|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 28 December 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Pub Talk: Social Chat:
Archive through 28 December 2002
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Saturday, 02 November 2002 - 07:02 am |        |  |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Saturday, 02 November 2002 - 07:56 am | | Well done Ally for your sterling efforts. Especially opening the pub again.
First today  Slurp.
Jim
 |
Author: Vila
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 07:33 pm | | Hello everyone,
I'm hanging out in the chatroom, celebrating my birthday whilst quietly sipping a few whiskeys at home. Wish y'all were here.
Vila |
Author: Ally
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 07:38 am | | Hello John,
Welcome to the Casebook. I noticed you deleted your original message and you didn't have to..it reminded me that I need to re-create the Hello, I'm New thread so new posters can post an introduction there. So thanks for the reminder and welcome to the boards!
Ally |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 12:02 pm | | Hi John,
Welcome. "fjj". You don't waste any time !
jj |
Author: Esther Wilson
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 06:12 pm | | Happy Be-lated Birthday Vila. 
Esther |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 12:05 pm | | Hi all,
In the voting section of Casebook, Ms Cornwell's book is making an impression already. It is in 12th place, and the number of people who have rated it is 201, the third highest. Am I right in saying it's not on sale in the shops yet ?
Also Walter Sickert is now the 4th most popular suspect, will he overtake James Maybrick ?
Jim |
Author: Stuart
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 05:35 am | | I think the voting section needs a reset every so often. Keep the old results as a "reference" if you like, but give us a new chart every 12 months so we can all vote again as new information comes in.
I doubt Maybrick would be top of a new poll. |
Author: Esther Wilson
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 08:55 am | | Please forgive my stupid question....but, where is the Voting section?
Esther |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 09:39 am | | Hi Esther,
The easiest way to get to it, is by clicking on Suspects in the main menu, at the bottom of the page you'll see a link, Who's the favourite Ripper suspect ? From that page you get the rest of the links.
Jim |
Author: Vila
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 04:01 pm | | I just got back from a face-to-face meeting with Scott Medine where a good time was had by both of us. We nattered on about Jack, Cornwell, the Casebook (and many other things; life, the universe, and everything) over burritos. We were both surprised that two contributors to the Boards could wind up living as close together as we turned out to do. This was great fun and I hope that we do it again sometime soon.
I'll be hanging out in the chat room tonight, if anyone cares to join me. I hope to see *you* there.
Vila |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 12:05 pm | | Any Latin scholars around? I never took Latin in school, which I now bitterly regret. I wonder if anyone can help with a quick translation:
If the motto "Age quod agis" means "do what you are doing," can someone tell me how to write "what are you doing?"
Thanks,
Dave |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 02:11 pm | | I do Latin :D
You could either have "quid agis?" or "quid facis?" Both 'agere' and 'facere' mean 'to do' so you could use either.
I also do ancient Greek if anyone needs any help with that :S
Carly (Caroline's daughter) |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 02:46 pm | | Hi, Carly
Thanks very much--I appreciate your answer!
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 06:57 am | | Hi Carly,
What's Latin for 'Romans Go Home' ?
Jim |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 10:35 am | | Tee hee - I'll ask her for you when she gets home from school. (Life of Brian is one of her favourites.)
Love,
Carly's Mum (and don't call me big nose) |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 12:11 pm | | Jim,
Romani they go the house,
Everyone knows that !!
Monty
|
Author: Billy Markland
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 10:41 am | | Chris George, have you changed your email address? If not, clean your inbox up
Anyway, I was going to forward you an email I received relating to a new site relative to the Southern Campaign in the War for Independence! The page URL is:
http://battleofcamden.org/
It has loads of transcribed documents relative to the Battle of Camden and the Southern war effort to avoid having to play cricket or soccer
Best of wishes,
Billy
P.S. Oops, my bad!! I had a double entry when I copied & pasted your addie. Will try again and see if it bounces this time. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 03:46 pm | | Hi, Billy:
I haven't changed my e-mail address. The one address, editorcg@yahoo.com usually works but has been giving me some trouble. If you can't get me that way, try chrisdonna@erols.com. Thanks for the info, Billy!
All the best
Chris |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 10:16 am | | Hi, Billy:
You might be interested in these British Army/Loyalist websites if you do not know of them:
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/
http://www.banastretarleton.org/
All the best
Chris |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 12:48 pm | | Chris,
As a matter of interest..I've tried both the AWI sites you mention..The "alternative" versions of "The Patriot" on the Tarleton site caused me to get a definate fit of the giggles..suppose that film is to the AWI as "From Hell" is to the Ripper case.
Steve |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 01:18 pm | | Hi, Stephen and Chris
You're right on about your remark about "The Patriot." Great battles scenes, but the movie was a bunch of p.c. hogwash, IMO. I threw up during the scene when the British come to Mel Gibson's plantation and make a remark about his "employees." I love the indignation:
"Slaves? These are free men! I don't know what you've heard about the South sir, but we don't hold with slavery in these parts!" Probably they did some research and found one instance of someone who hired people to work his land instead of slaves.
Too bad Mel Gibson's so concerned with his image--they could have tackled some tough issues in that film and provoked some discussion. I'd like to see the out-takes, though--I'm still looking for the scene where Gibson tells the black soldier, "Great! We've won our FREEDOM! Oh, not you" I'm sure they must have shot something along those lines, but it must have been cut for length. Besides, you had to have the scene where Gibson steals Cornwallis's dogs back (Silly Cornwallis, Trix are for kids). And then there's the scene where Gibson runs Tavington/Tarleton thru with the American flag. Gotta have that.
Too bad, because they could have made a really interesting movie. I've been trying to think of some good American Revolution films, and can't come up with one. "1776" was a musical (Saltpeter, John!), "Revolution" (with Al Pacino)--enough said. "Jefferson in Paris" wasn't so bad, although it's not about the war. All the good stuff seems to come from documentaries, and of course books.
Sorry for the rant. Mel has the clout to make a better movie, but apparently not the balls.
Cheers,
Dave
PS I remember being told in 6th grade history class that one of the reasons the British lost the war was because they didn't like getting their red coats dirty. That's true, right? (sarcasm) |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 01:29 pm | | David,
There's been a rumour for some time that Gibson wants to do a film version of the 1745 Jacobite rebellion...As a Re-enactor of that period I really hope he decides against it...what could be the title.."Culloden..The Empire strikes back"??
Steve |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 01:39 pm | | Steve,
(laugh) Yes, "The British Empire Strikes Back"! I didn't know he was doing something about the Jacobites. If he does, it'll be three anti-British films. Do you think Mel hates the British? He'll never get to be Sir Mel that way.
Dave |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 01:49 pm | | Hi, Steve and David:
It might be argued that the British would have won the "American Revolutionary War" if the French had not interceded on behalf of the Patriots. Certainly there was much more feeling toward the Crown than the Patriotic view of the conflict generally concedes, and George Washington and the Continental Army had their backs against the wall for most of the war.
Yes I would say that "The Patriot" very much does hold as much to the actual events of the Revolution as does "From Hell" to the Autumn of Terror!
I am not surprised to learn that Mel might be considering a film about Culloden. He seems to like those sort of anti-English roles. Remember "Gallipoli" also where he played an Aussie enlisted soldier against the stupid donkeys-to-the-slaughter upper class English officers. I have thought have contacting him with a script about Wolfe Tone or Owen Glendower.
All the best
Chris |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 01:58 pm | | Chris,
Many a true word...The Reenactment grapevine tells me a film on Glendower is to be shot in Wales next year...No further details yet, all I know is appropriate groups have been approached for the battle scenes. 350 years too early for me..there goes my chance of stardom.
Steve |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 02:13 pm | | Hi, Chris
"It might be argued?" It's a fact. There would've been no colonial victory without the French (and the Prussians who did much of the training). I think the Continental Army was very similiar to the Confederates later on (except with less victories)--ill-equipped, rag-tag. I think Washington's greatest contribution was just keeping the British from smashing him until the French came (and for giving up his command at the end of the war rather than seizing power). He didn't always lose, but I believe he lost more battles than he won. I've never really studied Washington's tactics in the field, so I may not be giving him what he's due.
I remember reading the loyalty split went three ways: a third were Patriots, a third were Loyalists (like Benjamin Franklin's son), and a third were undecided (even back then).
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 03:05 pm | | Hi, Dave,
I'll go along with you on Washington's greatest achievement being just keeping the Continental Army in existence...I think the war was lost by us poor,misunderstood Brits, more than it was won by the Patriots..I don't think the British Generals had ever heard of Maintainence of Aim..I picture them sitting around saying"Well,that plan didn't work...what shall we try next"? Having said that, I believe(as you suspected) that the Brits actually won more field actions..perhaps an early example of"Lions led by Donkeys"
Steve |
Author: Billy Markland
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 09:01 pm | | Gee, I didn't realize the Americans didn't win the war and the French did. Hmmm, if that is the case, why aren't I parlez vous Francais 'g then ? The next thing I will be hearing is that the British Empire didn't lose the war but the Germans did.
The French were invaluable after the English & Germans evacuated Boston (to prevent being placed under siege there) for New York . Supplies of all types were extremely scarce. We had no navy to speak of and Britain had finally decided to put the resources into winning the war. However, too little, too late. C'est la guerre y'all
Billy |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 09:56 pm | | | Dear Chris,Dave,Billy,and all.....Don't forget that Gibson played in "The Bounty",which "could" be considered anti-British...Even "Chicken Run" the claymation Stalag 17,has Mel as a American rooster leading the helpless British chickens to freedom...and of course,Braveheart... |
Author: Chris Jd
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 07:52 am | | Braveheart - very Anti-British
;-))
Christian |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 08:53 am | | Hi, Howard, Dave, Steve, Billy, Christian, et al.:
Good point, Howard, about "The Bounty" and "Chicken Run" being more of Mel versus the stuffy British hierarchy. He seems to have made a career of him versus the English nobs, doesn't he? I guess the hapless topdog Brits make easy targets. Just like Sir Charles Warren makes for an easy target in any portrayal of the Ripper case.
Incidentally, I am part of a Banastre Tarleton yahoo mailing list and one of the posters is an interesting lady in Scotland who runs the Silver Whistle loyalist/British Army site, and who made some interesting points about how the British tourism industry and even museums are bending over backwards to cater to the American patriotic view and tend to downplay the role of the Loyalists or the British in the American War of Independence. You may find the below of impressions of hers of interest.
All the best
Chris
*********
While the majority of tourists in terms of actual visitor numbers are internal (from within the UK) or from mainland Europe, the rich ones who spend the most money are from the US, so even the smallest downturn in US visitor figures (as per last year) is greeted with panic in some quarters. It's wonderful that people visit, and it's fun to meet them, but it is dangerous that history is massaged and falsified to suit *their* agenda. Instead of letting them meet us on *our* terms, we are expected to pander to their expectations and stereotypes.
Unfortunately, very few people seem prepared to say anything about this - partly because of the fear of 'scaring off' the tourists by not being ingratiating enough, and partly because of the prevalence of retrospective guilt-tripping in some quarters of the heritage industry, that means the idea of glorifying anything for oneself is anathema. There's a lot of what I can only call 'tartanised Uncle Tom-ism' and cultural dollar-prostitution.
The irony is, that a lot of well-informed US visitors would *like* to see proper coverage that didn't simply mirror what they can get so easily at home and flatter their national ideology; and there's also the issue of Canadian visitors, whose interests are *totally ignored*. (I recently gave a talk on John Pitcairn in Dunfermline. Among the audience was a Canadian youth, of UEL descent, who was stunned at the level of ignorance here. When I was at school, we weren't even told Loyal Americans existed... And I have yet to have any success with efforts to get commemoration for the house where Gen. Sir Roger Hale Sheaffe - the Bostonian Loyalist who helped save Canada at Queenston Heights - died in Melville St. in Edinburgh in 1851. There is no problem getting plaques - and in some parts of the country even house-museums - to commemorate one or 2 prominent emigrants-turned-Rebel.)
The danger is that 'tourist history' doesn't just sell to the tourist market: because it's the historical narrative which is marketed most visibly at popular level, it is what is most easily accessed by the domestic market also. (For example, a simplistic, inaccurate history book aimed at the tourist market can be picked up at any public information office for £5.99; the Penguin New History of Scotland - an excellent book - costs £16.99 paperback: which is the average punter going to buy?) You then also get some individuals in the heritage industry accusing academic historians of being part of some kind of "conspiracy" against "the people" because the historians are challenging the simplistic Hollywood versions of history which they are using as cash-cows to promote their museums. (I'm thinking of a case a couple of years ago, but won't name names here. I wasn't involved, but was astonished that no-one actually took the curator in question aside...)
Dr M M Gilchrist
docm@silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk |
Author: Billy Markland
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 10:55 am | | Dr. Gilchrist is simply describing "revisionist history" AKA Cornwellian Ripperology. Facts which do not fit the history the presenter wishes to portray are simply shuffled in the old filing cabinet.
The devil made me do it
Billy |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 11:40 am | | Hi, Billy:
If I may respond, it is not so much revisionist history as seeing what one wants to see, through a distorted lens. Unfortunately too much history is being viewed in such a way because, for instance, it is politically correct to view things in a certain way or a school of thought predominates to the detriment of the truth.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 02:55 pm | | Chris,
I Think that even in the U.K.,The historical 'party line' is democratic American patriots=Good, Tyrannical Brits+German hirelings+Loyalist traitors=Bad (Can never work out how a Loyalist can be a traitor...). I know in my own field, the amount of emotional rubbish promoted as fact about 1745 could sink a battleship. When talking to the Public we spend most of our time explaining that History according to Hollywood isn't always accurate. Another good example are the Cromwellian 'atrocities' in Ireland. Recent(Irish) research traces most of the stories to contemporary royalist sources or to Nationalists of the 18thCent. or later.
Steve |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 03:13 pm | | Hi, Steve:
Interesting about the new look at alleged Cromwellian atrocities in Ireland. I would be interested in reading more about that. It is though as the old adage goes, the winners get to write the history. Therefore, it's not surprising that Royalists after the Restoration of 1660 and more recently Irish Nationalists and/or Irish Catholics would all want to show Cromwell in the worst possible light.
All the best
Chris |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 08:30 pm | | Hi, Warwick Parminter:
I thought I'd better answer you here instead of the Policeman's Thread. I meant to keep my answer brief, but I wasn't able to I hope you see me over here.
Thanks for your views regarding the death penalty, and you definitely raise some good points. A lot of Americans would agree with you that 10-12 years on Death Row isn't fair, particularly the families of victims. But I think it's the price we pay to ensure the innocent don't receive a lethal injection. I know the victims' families must feel it's terribly unfair, but there's nothing fair about murder. There's a saying over here--"better to let ten guilty men go free rather than execute one innocent man." That's my view, too--but there are lots of people who would strenuously disagree with me. We'll never have a perfect system, that's for sure. I would rather err on the side of caution and civil liberties than speed.
I also share your sense of outrage over acts of terrorism (I remember your sentiments from this past Sept. 11, and I thank you again for them). But I think in their wake, we should be extra vigilant of what our governments are doing. I agree with some of the measures the Bush administration has taken, but there's always the danger of them going too far. . .have you heard about the Computer Security Enhancement Act? It's flowery language for spying on whatever I choose to do on the Internet--for example, which sites I visit. No warrant is required for them to secure this information. I'm all for going after terrorists, but you can be sure that this will be abused in the future. I certainly don't trust John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, (or John Poindexter of Iran/Contra fame) with this information! By the way, if you ever happen to see one of John Ashcroft's press conferences, note the curtain behind him. This is a recent addition, and it covers a Statue of Justice (I believe it's Justice). It's a nude statue, and our Attorney General felt uncomfortable in the prescence of naked breasts, at least marble ones, hence the curtain. Metaphor, anyone?
Homeland Security
Cheers to you, Rick!
Dave
PS Incidentally, and I'm not trying to be funny, but I could swear that John Poindexter died six or seven years ago--seriously. I distinctly remember hearing the story, it stood out in my mind because Poindexter smoked a pipe and I collect them. I was very surprised to see him turn up again. |
Author: Graham Jay
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 05:12 am | | I thought the main reason that the British lost the War of Independence was that all our best troops were off in Europe fighting the traditional enemy (the French) which left only second rate ones to fight in America.
I also read a couple of months ago (and I have no idea how true it is) that the British at the time were only really interested in keeping the West Indies. If anyone could tell me more about that I'd be grateful, as it's not really a period of history that I have read up on |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 07:17 am | | | Dear Graham: Hope all is well...The Empire probably took the Colonials too lightly. It happens in all things from sports to marriages..The Americans had the home field,soldiers like Arnold( before he jumped teams ) and Washington....an ideology...the sense of urgency( most British soldiers probably wanted to do their stint and get back to England in one piece...)...and increasing sentiment toward their cause with each battle. Its true that barely over a third of the Colonialists wanted to break. Included within that third were most of the folks with the money,vision,and say....guys like Jefferson and in particular Ben Franklin....Did you know,Graham,that we came ONE VOTE from speaking German over here? Remember that one the next time that someone dismisses voting ! The entire course of the world( no US involvement in the World Wars,perhaps.....)may have been decided by that one vote....Anyway,Washington was fearless( his coat was riddled with bullet holes and is on display)and was the "right man at the right time".Factor in guerilla tactics,rising resentment toward the British,and of course our assistance from the French. I live pretty close( 20 minutes) from Valley Forge,where they still have the replica huts( about 5 1/2 feet high) where the Continental Army bivouaced in Winter...It'll give you a lump in the throat,if you see what those guys let Washington talk them into...Graham,I suggest reading about George Washington or Ben Franklin. Two giants in our history..Later,dude ! HB |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:25 am | | Hi, Howard:
You might be right about the bullet holes in Washington's coat but is this story verifiable. Have you actually seen the coat? Is it on display somewhere as you seem to indicate? Is this story like the evident myth about the Star-Spangled Banner being riddled with cannonballs during the bombardment of Fort McHenry, which evidently is not so -- the big flag could not have been flying during the storm that occurred during the bombardment, since even today the rangers at Fort McHenry don't fly the big flag in unsettled weather. The holes in the flag appear to be due to age and the fact that the family of fort commander Lt. Col. George Armistead gave away pieces of the flag to visitors for decades afterward.
The story of the four bullets in Washington's coat seems to come from the book by his grandson in talking about General Edward Braddock's defeat in 1755, as discussed on one website that sees God's manifest hand in his survival:
"George Washington had two horses shot out from under him and received four bullet holes in his jacket. Both showed extraordinary courage during this fierce battle, George Washington's friend, Dr. James Craik, who was a witness of the battle said: 'I expected every movement to see him fall. His duty and situation exposed him to every danger. Nothing but the superintending care of Providence could have saved him from the fate of all around him.'" (Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington, by George Washington Parke Custis, Edited by Benson J. Lossing, Vol. 1, page 248)
Is this right, or is the bullet holes story part of the mythmaking that has built George Washington into a god? Another web biography of George Washington while repeating the four bullets story points out the mistakes George Washington made in the French and Indian Wars and talks about his evident desire for a commission in the British Army, stating, "how different American history might have been had he achieved his goal."
All the best
Chris |
Author: Graham Jay
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:34 am | | Thanks for that Howard, I think I will take your suggestion and read up on them, the difficulty (as with all topics, including JTR) is that many authors will insist on writing books inclined towards their own opinions, which is what puts me off reading about more recent events such as this one - so much information is known about it, so many people have theories as to causes etc, that it's hard to find a purely objective book. I do have one which touches on the Revolution, written by an Englishman living in America, which I haven't got round to reading - maybe he will be on middle ground.
I agree with you that a charismatic leader can work wonders ("once more into the breech dear friends" and all that!). I went to see HMS Victory for the first time a few weeks ago, and when you see the plaque on the deck to show the spot where Nelson was shot you realise just how inspiring it must be to see your admiral standing in the thick of the fighting in full dress uniform ("England expects every man will do his duty" another great sound bite)
Interesting though that Washington, being British, could also be considered a traitor - if the British had won, he'd have been executed and then who'd remember him? And Arnold would be the loyalist hero.... that's what makes history so fascinating, to my mind. I guess it also means that, once you've nailed your colours to the mast, you better be prepared to see the job through.
BTW, I thought that the "one vote away from speaking German" story was a myth? After all, the majority of people in the USA must have been non-German speakers at the time - can you imagine trying to convince everyone to speak a new language? Maybe it is just an apocryphal tale to teach people of the value of voting.
Thanks for your post Howard, good to hear from you again. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:30 am | | Hi, Chris, Howard, and Graham
Actually, I've heard that Washington was responsible for starting the French and Indian War--is this an overstatement? I remember something about his men accidentally shooting the French ambassador. No wonder the British wouldn't give him his commission.
By the way, I'm not suggesting Washington was a ninny--he wasn't. What he did for us was incredible, keeping his army together and going in the face of a much better equipped and trained force. And the Europeans also expected him to seize power after the war, for which there was also some colonial support. We're fortunate that he choose to relinquish power, I don't believe that had happened before.
He's a mysterious figure--has anyone heard this anecdote (there aren't many, and I don't know if this one is true): while crossing the Delaware, Washington turns to one of his generals (Knox, who was a heavy man) and says, "Shift your fat ass, Harry, before you swamp the boat." We really don't know much about Washington's personality, he's been so lionized.
Graham, I think the British were very interested in keeping America--it was a tremendous resource. I don't know if the troops in America were the best England had--they did win most of the battles. But to Washington's credit, they never smashed his army. And the colonists were extremely fortunate to have an array of incredible thinkers behind them as well, who created propaganda that's still accepted as fact even today. Of course, it wasn't all propaganda, there was also an ideal to fight for, Liberty--the Founding Fathers really believed in that. Even if they (and we) don't always live up to it, there's always been that ideal.
I also think there was a certain arrogance among those in control of the British government at that time, who completely misjudged colonial sentiment(there was also a moderate element in London they ignored). Even the leaders of the Revolution initially wanted reconcilliation with the British. For example, Benjamin Franklin was a huge Anglophile, and for a while he was a celebrated figure in London (for his experiments with electricity).
Even if the British had won the war, I don't think Arnold would have ever been considered a hero--his didn't switch sides from any sense of loyalty to George III, his goals were strictly mercenary in that he thought the Colonials didn't appreciate him enough. The British didn't dish out too much respect for him either, and I believe Arnold lived out a rather neglected life in London and Canada. Who trusts a turncoat?
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: stephen stanley
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 02:54 pm | | Graham,
Britain's 'best troops'...well, virtually all her troops were already engaged in the colonies before france entered the war..it was also France's entry which made larger numbers of troops in the Carribbean neccessary(& also in India). European land engagements (other than J.P. Jones's scottish raid) were limited to the siege of Gibralter & a French attack on the Channel Islands.
Chris,
Whilst I can't remember the Author's name,The Cromwell book is titled,"Cromwell: An honourable enemy"....should be obtainable from Amazon etc.
Steve |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 04:56 pm | | | Graham...Thanks for the reply...The comment I made about the "one vote away" from speaking German was told to me in High School,back in '69. The teacher's name was Wm.Smith,the "4th fastest speed-reader in the US"( which is like being the biggest midget in the circus....who cares,right?) Great to hear from you too,my friend !! Dear Chris: The "holes in the coat" came from a documentary( on PBS,I think ) where they were talking about G.W....Let me check further,as I should have been certain and told you/others where I saw that...my fault. I am also certain I saw a photo of the coat. Chris,I will look for it and let you know. Thanks for replying to the post...Howard,slightly winded from trying to make snowmen out of this "bad-snowman snow"( my daughter) today.. Actually,it was a waste of time in the first place.I was going to try to make a snowman the size of Ivor Edwards,but it didn't snow THAT much.....Thanks HB |
Author: Billy Markland
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 03:10 am | | Chris, I think you are largely right about the basis of the story deriving from Braddock's defeat. The fact that the person attributed it to whatever does not cancel out the first hand (supposedly) observations of fact. George Washington was undoubtedly a brave man who had always wanted to be a soldier. I will try to find other sources to substaniate this,but the best I recall is that GW lead the rear guard after all their officers were killed or wounded in that battle. In one of the battles of the Rev. War, I think either White Plains or Monmouth, GW is said to have attempted to lead a counter-attack. I will try to find the reference when I get home next week.
Dave, George did create the first incidents of the French & Indian War. His troops shot a French officer. Not long after, his troops were surrounded and captured at, I believe, Ft. Defiance.
As far at the quote to Knox, you know, it may be hearsay but remember, GW was a farmer, soldier, and was immensley liked before he became an icon. I see no reason to doubt that with everything on the line, he would not crack a crude jest at the portly Knox simply to relieve the tension.
Chris, after Braddock's battles, Washington was put to defending the Virginia frontier with about 100 men. The fact that, after the war, any settlements still existed in western VA can be largely attributed to he and his troops. From what I have read, without that thin line, the Indians would have rolled the white settlements back well into the flatlands (I estimate somewhere between Richmond & Charlottesville).
Again, I will try to come back to this next week with sources, etc. when I get home.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 04:57 am | | One little episode of the American war of independence.
An American battalion was advancing through woods when it came to a clearing,at the end of which was a small hill.On this hill was a lone British soldier,clad in No1 dress.Seeing the Americans he cried out,"I am the best soldier in the British Army,you will not pass me".
Infuriated at this insolence, the American Commander ordered his best trooper forward,with orders to teach the Englishman some manners.
The American moved towards the hill,and followed as the Englishman moved back and out of sight.There was the sound of a short tussle,then the English soldier appeared again on the hill,not a hair out of place."You will not pass me he cried,no matter how many men you send against me.I am the greatest soldier in the British army".
Needless to say the American commander became even more infuriated,and ordered a dozen men forward.The same thing happened.They approached and followed the englishman over the hill and out of sight,and the sound of a fight was heard.After a minute or so the English soldier reappeared,and repeated his taunt.
As increasing numbers of Americans were dispatched against the English soldierwith the same result,the Commander became desperate.Calling a whole company to him,he implored them to move the Englishman.
Forward they moved.Across the clearing,up and over the hill and out of sight.For about five minutes there was the sound of furious fighting.Then a lone American soldier,his body bloodied and uniform in tatters,stumbled into sight.Down the hill and across the clearing to fall at the feet of his commander.
"for heavens sake sir do not commit any more men.That english soldier is not alone.There are two of the bastards there". |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 09:29 am | | Hi, Billy, Harry, Howard, Steve, David & Graham:
Very amusing story, Harry, thanks for that.
Billy, I look forward to you getting back to me with further documentation on George Washington. I don't doubt that he was a fearless man and earned the respect of his men. I just don't want us to take at face value some of the stories that have been passed down without taking a look at them in case they may be made-up stories to bolster the George Washington myth like the story about George and the cherry tree made up by Parson Weems.
There is a story about Andrew Jackson that he had a scar on his forehead that he received when he was thirteen years old, supposedly when he was struck with a sword by a British officer when the boy Jackson refused to clean the officer's boots. This incident is celebrated in a Currier and Ives print, "The Brave Boy of the Waxhaws" (see below). I have wondered if the incident is true, or whether it was made up later to bolster Jackson's legend. I have seen mention that the incident is mentioned in Jackson letters, so right now I am going to assume for now that the story may have basis until I see what exactly Jackson says in his correspondence about the episode. And who knows, even if he mentions it in his letters, surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Andrew Jackson possibly embroidered history himself for his own political ends, is it?
Best regards
Chris George
 |
Author: Graham Jay
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 09:52 am | | Does it really matter if these stories are true? Every country has it's heroes, and their life stories get embellised over time. GW's character must have been one that fits with the story of him getting bullet holes in his jacket - if he had been the type of person that liked to skulk at the back of battles then the story would never have been given credence in the first place.
It's becoming a habit to debunk national heroes, here in Britain it's becoming commonplace. Even our recent "Greatest Britons" series seemed to enjoy dwelling on negative aspects of the those they were discussing, and as we all know now, Churchill was an ineffective drunkard who didn't make his own speeches (!) |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 11:47 am | | Hi, Graham:
I am not trying to debunk anyone. I am only trying to get to the historical truth. I agree that there is a trend to try to tear down heroes. That isn't my intent. I think it does matter that fictional stories are perpetuated. For example, do you know that it is almost certainly a myth that Betsy Ross made the first Stars and Stripes? The popular myth is that did make the flag at the request of George Washington but that story appears to come from Betsy's grandson, William Canby, making that claim in 1870 a century after the fact. Rather, the historical truth appears to be that New Jersey congressman Francis Hopkinson was responsible for the design of the flag.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 06:17 pm | | | Chris and Graham: CG,if we did a serious investigation to American history,for an example,so much of it is myth that it makes Henry Ford's opinion of it as "bunk' ring true.......Graham: I know what you mean,bubs. Churchill was the greatest thing since sliced bread back in the 40's. He was needed. Now,its easy to pick apart the man. Here in America,I can remember when people tried to "hide" their American Indian bloodline. Being considered a "half-breed' was a proverbial stain...Then came the 1960's. Everyone and his brother boasted of their 1/128th Cherokee great grand pappy. So maybe its all in the timing. I have a great 1949 issue of National Geographic,an all-British issue,which would blow you away with its coverage of the Empire's history and contribution. Nowadays,its become,sadly,easy and politically correct to chip away at the Empire,the US,and Western Civ. in general. Why I mentioned the Nat.Geographic is this: Perhaps no historian,save the late Stephen Ambrose or the giant,J.M. Roberts of the U.K.,would write such positive tomes in this time. You younger guys may want to look up Charles Beard( U.S.),whose book Rise of the American Civilization was actually my 11th grade textbook...I wish I had kept the book. Later dudes........HB |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 10:39 pm | | Hi Harry,
Which one of those two English soldiers was it who went on to invade Washington and burn the White House to the ground while the other one was on leave in dear old Blighty ? I heard it was the one (over the hill and out of sight) with the dodgy leg, one arm, and blind in one eye. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 03:38 am | | Ivor,
It was the second one,the one with the dodgy leg,one arm and blind in one eye.His mates nicknamed him Lucky.
I wonder if it was my tale that offended Ally.She must know I wouldn't stir a cup of tea if it would drown the fly that fell in it.
Or perhaps Cornwell turned her down one time.
Chris,
Glad you have a sense of humor. |
Author: julienonperson
Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 06:36 pm | | Christopher George,
Why do you think Abberline, Insp. Frederick, was
buried in an unmarked grave, as stated in JtR -
A-Z? His wife was still living, and I find it odd
that she did not provide a marker for him. He was
making a comefortable living on his pension and
his P.I. work, so money doesn't seem to be an
issue. It just seems strange to me that, with his
career and recognized work on JtR case to name
one, that no one would honor him with at least a
marker on his grave.
I would appreciate your valued opinion, if you
have time.
Thank you in advance,
Julie |
Author: Billy Markland
Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 01:45 pm | | Chris, you have doubts about the "cherry tree incident"? Jeez, the next thing I will hear is that you have doubts about George throwing the silver dollar across the Potomac
Tongue firmly in cheek,
Billy |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 06:02 pm | | Hi, Julie:
I have no firm answer on why Abberline did not have a headstone on his grave. I believe when we visited the grave at the time of the Bournemouth conference, one idea was that because he didn't have children, there was no headstone made for him, even though his wife was still alive. It was not unusual for people to be buried in unmarked graves and for surviving relatives to know where the plot was to visit and lay flowers on the grave. I can remember visiting my great grandmother's grave which was just a well manicured but unmarked mound in Allerton Cemetery, Liverpool. My grandmother paid the caretaker to take care of the grave.
I believe I have read that John Lennon's mother, Julia, killed by a drunken off-duty policeman in a traffic accident, is buried in Allerton Cemetery. I have also read that there is a mystery as to where John's remains were buried, to keep them away from fans, and that his remains might be with his mother's--though I have read separately that his body was cremated and dispersed either in Bermuda or Strawberry Fields in Central Park. So believe what you want to believe. I did hear on CBS Sunday Morning today what I believe was some faulty information. They did, separately, a spot on Lennon to remember him on the anniversary of his death 22 years ago today, and later a segment on the Volkswagen Beetle. During the latter segment on the VW, someone stated that the VW Beetle visible on the "Abbey Road" album cover was Lennon's (see below). It is the car on the left side of the road with the famous license plate "28 IF" that supposedly relates to McCartney's age if you buy the rumor that Paul McCartney was dead when the album was made and had been replaced by a lookalike--along with a number of other clues said to be on album covers and in the records themselves, if you played them backward. But that is the first time, I believe, that I have heard that the car belonged to Lennon. I think it's a bogus piece of information.
All the best
Chris
 |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 06:54 pm | | Hi, Chris
John Lennon was supposed to have been cremated at Hartsdale Crematorium in New York State, although I've also read of rumors that there is a physical grave (I suppose the ashes may have been buried). It makes sense that some of the ashes might have been spread near Julia Stanley's grave in Liverpool. I certainly wouldn't blame the family for keeping it secret. I recall the sightseers who tried to catch a glimpse of George Harrison's ceremony at the Ganges River, and attorney Gloria Allred's publicity-driven search to find out whose house he died in.
I agree with you the Volkswagen belonging to Lennon is probably bogus. Can't picture him driving a bug to sessions at Abbey Road and parking it curbside (Lennon was not known for his driving skills, and did not receive his license until around 1966). Also, the car on the Abbey Road cover doesn't look like it would belong in a garage next to Lennon's psychedelic Rolls Royce!
Dave
PS The rumor about Paul is true (laugh) |
Author: julienonperson
Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 09:04 pm | | Hi Chris,
Sorry for sending you a second message but I do not normally receive pub talk posts. Thanks for the Information, it was most interesting, and the
picture is great.
regards julie |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 09:41 am | | Hi, David, Julie, et al.:
Julie, I am always glad to provide information if I know it. It's as educational for me to research these things as well as for those, hopefully, that I seek to inform. Stick around, you will probably learn more than you ever want to know about this and that!
David, you might be right about McCartney. It is certainly very interesting that the lookalike Paul McCartney has written a lot more songs than the one who died so tragically in 1966! 
All the best
Chris |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 12:55 pm | | Hi, all--
As part of research I am doing presuming I may be
successful as the bidder to write a bicentennial history of the St. Andrews Society of Baltimore, founded 1806, I happened to access the website for the Wallace Memorial at Abbey Craig--
http://www.rampantscotland.com/visit/blvisitwallace.htm
Therein, it is stated:
"The ground floor room contains the inevitable
souvenir shop - with a video player and TV screen
continuously playing the Mel Gibson 'Braveheart'
film."
Hand me the barf bag!
I could imagine if "The Patriot" were playing
continuously at the Cowpens Visitors Center! Please!
Chris
Happy Holidays to all!  |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 09:02 pm | | Hi again:
In regard to my point about Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" playing at the Wallace Memorial in Scotland, the interesting Dr. Marianne Gilchrist had the following to say--
"This is precisely the kind of schlocky approach that I've mentioned before, which really worries me. Frankly, Stirling Council knows a cash-cow when it sees one. This is the same visitors' centre that sells a booklet (by a history graduate who was a friend of a friend of mine) which lauds the film and says one mustn't let 'synthetic concerns about accuracy' (yes, that's a genuine quote!) get in the way.
"The Stirling Museums curator at the time of the film (not sure if she's still there - though I fear she is) also accused academic historians of being part of a 'conspiracy' for making historical criticisms of it: but then she regards 'Blind Harry' - the Mason Weems of his day, with the added excuse of writing about *160 years* after the events he describes, under the patronage of a faction anxious to scupper James III's negotiations with Edward IV - as gospel.
"What it all boiled down to, though, was *money*. Despite the film being largely shot in Ireland, Stirlingshire is now marketing itself as 'Braveheart Country', and someone donated a truly crappy statue of Mel-in-kilt (no, I'm not joking) which Stirling Council agreed to put up. The trouble with a lot of museums, heritage centres &c. here being run by local govt. is that the purse strings are held by councillors, not by anyone with expertise in the field. They regard any heritage installation which generates money in their locality as good and desirable, regardless of the quality of what it is purveying: they can go home patting themselves on the back for doing something for 'culture'. And then you get the people who ought to know better (like the museum curator), who know the right buttons to press with the local politicians, and would cheerfully sell their grandmothers if it meant bigger visitor numbers, esp. from well-off overseas tourists.
"Unfortunately, rather than tackle these elements head-on, serious historians have tended to ignore them. The danger is that myths and pseudo-history are allowed to flourish unchallenged and dominate the popular culture as the 'real' story.
"I despair of my country at times, but have to keep fighting."
Marianne M. Gilchrist
docm@silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 05:28 am | | I certainly don't blame you for being upset over the dumbing down of museums. When I heard that the private company that has the license to run the NASA museum put up a diplay suggesting that aliens might have crashed at Roswell, New Mexico, I was thoroughly disgusted. I think the two situations are roughly comparable.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
--------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: stephen stanley
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 09:47 am | | Chris,
Last year My Re-enactment group performed at Stirling Castle for a week....Great expierience,but our trip to the monument(on our day off) did rather spoil things,incidentally the statue isn't even a good one..looks like a kid's action figure. My faith in public presentation of "Heritage" was slightly restored by a trip to the Culloden visitors centre the next week..shows presentation can be done in a user-friendly way without cheap gimmicks.(BTW, We did a wreath-laying on the monument ther...one of the most emotional moments I can recall, Redcoats & Jacobites united in honouring the dead)
Steve |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 09:58 am | | Hi, Dan and Steve:
Thank you both for your input. I hear a Loyalist reenactment group is going to have a wreath laying cemetery on the Cowpens battlefield next month.
Here is yet another take on this question of whether museums should "dumb down" for the public or whether the films might actually bring more people in--
>>> samuelculpeper@yahoo.com 12/13/02 08:56AM >>>
Liste,
I don't know what goes on in Scotland, but as far as this country goes, a lot worse could befall the National Park Service holdings than showing "The Patriot" in their visitor's centers. The truth of the matter is, that flick has done more to boost interest and attendance at the AmRev parks than anything since the Bicentennial -- maybe even more than the Bicentennial [which I remember as being very boring]. I've read comments to this effect from the man who runs Guilford Courthouse and was personally told such by the NPS employee at Ninety-Six when I visited there this past fall. Like it or not, wring your hands and make your erudite noises of disapproval as much as you please, but "The Patriot" packs them in. And you know what, when people stop by Cowpens or Guilford Courthouse or King's Mountain, they might be absorbing something; yes, the great unwashed masses just might be learning a little bit of the real history. They might buy a book or two [maybe some of the books you people on this board have written or will write] and they will go away with a greater appreciation of their nation's history. And maybe, when the day comes that Joe Greed wants to bulldoze some historical piece of property in their area, they will stand up and be counted among those opposing it, like those dedicated souls [moi included] who turned out several years ago at the call of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and helped save Manassas from unnecessary development.
The real threat to the integrity of our national battlefields -- the thing all of you if you truly love the AmRev or just history in general should be gnashing your teeth over is the evil efforts by the PC Thought Police in this country to focus the intepretation of our battlefields on "non-military" themes. Take the battle out of the battlefield, so to speak. [This was the focus of a recent debate on CSPAN, which I unfortunately missed]. Let's spend the tax money showing how peaceful noncombatants lived -- slaves and women and children -- and let's not do it at preserved plantations and homesteads where it would make sense -- no, let's do it at Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse and King's Mountain where men bled and died. [This hasn't happened yet at the AmRev sites, but this under discussion with the ACW battlefields; you can bet the AmRev will be next].
So if you're worried about "schlockiness" invading the visitor's centers, worry no more. In this type of atmosphere they would never show "The Patriot" -- eee-yeww, it shows children using guns! But they would also never show the films they now have of men fighting and dying, Britain losing its colonies and America gaining its independence, what it was all truly about, because -- oh, heavens! -- that glorifies war!
THAT'S what all of us should be worried about. And that's why it's bully for "The Patriot". If it keeps us from someday seeing Cowpens National Happylands Amusement Park sprawling over where your friend Banastre Tarleton rode then I say long may it be shown, and frankly so should you. Because Banastre Tarleton, folks, as a white male who liked to fight has no place in the brave new PC world. We, and his memory both, owe "The Patriot" a lot.
Soma, anyone?
Nicole |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 03:02 pm | | Hi, all:
Here is a link to an article from the History News Network about the fight over artifacts such as the Elgin Marbles. Republished from the Sydney Morning Herald of December 11, 2002 the original article is titled, "Sorry, They're Our Bones - Top Museums Unite To Fight Aboriginal Claims." In other words, many museums are putting their foot down about the possible of return of artifacts collected during the Imperialist years.
Involved besides the Elgin Marbles is the Koh-i-Noor diamond, one of the treasures in the British Crown Jewels housed at the Tower of London. First recorded appearance in 1306, it became part of the Crown Jewels after the British found it in 1849 in the treasury in Lahore. The late Taliban as well as Indian authorities have tried to get it back from the British.
Just curious: As listed in the above cited article, how would the Imperialist Scots have got the following object after the Massacre of Wounded Knee??? You might expect it to be in the Smithsonian but not necessarily in the Glasgow Museum of Scotland.
Ghost Dance Shirt
In 1999 the Lakota Sioux people had a repatriation
ceremony for the Ghost Dance Shirt, which had been
held by the Glasgow Museum in Scotland since the
massacre at Wounded Knee.
All the best
Chris |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 03:09 pm | | Hi, Chris
I believe the Lakota Ghost Dance Shirt came to Scotland via Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. I've read that it was donated to the museum by George Crager, a Lakota interpreter who was with the show.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 03:24 pm | | Hi, Dave:
Thanks for that information, that you believe the Lakota Ghost Dance Shirt came to Scotland via George Crager, a Lakota interpreter with Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. I was wondering if there might be that type of connection, or maybe a U.S. Army officer of Scottish heritage. Thanks for contributing.
All the best
Chris |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 03:38 pm | | Hi, Chris
According to this site, Crager also worked for the US army, but came to be at Wounded Knee thru some work as a correspondent for "New York World."
Ah, Google! (laugh)
link
Dave |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 04:37 pm | | Chris/Dave,
Makes you wonder about the trail of some Museum exhibits...My local Regimental Museum displayed The switchboard from The Eagle's Nest...As we all know from "Band of Brothers" this should belong to the 101st airbourne...so how did the Middlesex Regt. get it?...post-war black market scullduggery?
Steve |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 11:57 pm | | Kiss Miss Marple Goodbye
"Scottish mystery author Val McDermid talks about the tough reality of life in today's Britain and why crime writers, not literary novelists, are the ones facing up to it."
I'm not familiar with Val McDermid, but I thought some of you might like this article at Salon.com. Sorry for the cut and paste job--I couldn't get the formatting to work:
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2002/11/26/mcdermid/index.html
Dave |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 09:34 am | | Val McDermid writes several series of mystery novels, but far and away her best are the Tony Hill books. She began it with THE MERMAIDS SINGING, and the second, WIRE IN THE BLOOD, is just terrific. Give her a try, and be certain to get A PLACE OF EXECUTION, a one-off that is set at the time of the Moors Murders.
Ian Rankin is another writer not known well in the US, but HE SHOULD BE! All his Edinburgh novels are edgy and dark and very interesting.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 11:00 am | | Hi Judy, Dave, All,
Here in the UK, we have been able to see Tony Hill, played by Robson Green, in action, as 'Wire in the Blood' has been made into a tv drama. I think the last of the series is on tonight. I've enjoyed what I've managed to catch of it so far.
Love,
Caz |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 12:10 pm | | Caz......yup, WIRE IN THE BLOOD has been on the BBCA for the last three weeks...and isn't Robson Green a tasty bit?? I really like the characters that McDermid writes. But be sure to read PLACE OF EXECUTION, Caz......it's very good, and with the Brady/Hindley time frame, it's an interesting read. It isn't a Tony Hill, but it IS worth the time.
Love,
J |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 12:24 pm | | Robson Green a tasty bit?
Can't say I've noticed.... (she fibs - very badly)
Thanks for the tip, Judy, I'll add it to my Christmas list - Place of Execution, that is, not the tasty bit.
Love,
Caz |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 01:37 pm | | WHY NOT BOTH, CAZ?? We can always ask Father Christmas for a REAL present, right?
J |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 06:44 am | | Hi Judy,
Why not? Because the bloke whose job it is to dress up as Santa in our house would not appreciate seeing Robson in my stocking.
Love,
Caz |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 10:02 am | | Oh, well...I'd bet he's as finicky about that as mine is....funny how narrow people can get, isn't it??
J |
Author: Spryder
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 05:35 pm | | | Not sure if this was mentioned elsewhere (just got into the house) but Patsy's on C-SPAN2 right now, BookTV. |
Author: Billy Markland
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 01:05 am | | Since there are so many history buffs (and no, I am not talking literally about Christopher ) I thought I would share this e-book site I just found:
http://www.eldritchpress.org
I am currently starting on Cabeza De Vaca's "Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America" .
From what I gather, this site pushes the envelope on the copyright laws (they have a case pending for presentation to the Supreme Court currently)so it may be a case of read it while you have a chance.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 02:49 pm | | Chris T.
I've just seen a promo for the George Washington/Benedict Arnold show you were talking about earlier. Interesting that it seems at least part of Arnold's motivation will be for "love of a woman". Also interestng is that Kelsey Grammer seems to have only one facial expression. I saw a clip of his Macbeth--during the stage combat sequences, they took the lights down low (total eclipse low, as if they were trying to hide Grammer's lack of combat expertise). I hope the writers of the A&E production don't decide to write in a sword fight between Washington and Arnold, but you never know!
No matter how good he turns out to be in the role, he'll never top Barry Bostwick's portrayal of Washington. Nobody will, and they may as well stop making movies about him.
Incidentally, I've come across Kelsey Grammer's curious website--unless the page isn't loading properly, all it seems to be is a photo next to email address for both him and his wife (I'm not sure why I'd want to email Camille Grammer, however). In the search engine blurb, I'm promised essays and a list of charities supported by the Grammers, but there's none of that! Kelsey
Stephen Ryder ought to take him up on his offer to 'keep in touch'--it looks like he's in need of a good web designer.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 02:53 pm | | | What a gyp! You can't even email him. Very un-George Washington-ish. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 10:48 pm | | Hi, David:
There's a "Making of Benedict Arnold" segment on A&E tonight at 11:30 pm.
Chris |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 28 December 2002 - 11:55 am | | Everyone stop what you're doing. Subscribers to HBO have a chance to witness a rare treat--"Jeykll & Hyde: The Musical" will be on this afternoon at 3:45 central, 4:45 eastern. While Richard Mansfield has left the stage, this production does feature the talents of DAVID HASSELHOFF. I see that Mr. Hasselhoff is described as merely "competent" as Jekyll and Hyde (that's right, Hasselhoff in dual roles). Obviously the reviewer isn't German. However, other performances are described as "spectacular" and "spellbinding", so this is probably worth catching.
Christian Jaud, since I know you're a big fan of all things Hasselhoff, I'll be thinking of you as I watch this one. I will carefully memorize the performance so I can recreate it for you should we ever meet someday
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 28 December 2002 - 08:09 pm | | Hi, Dave:
I saw the show on Broadway and thought it was great. Hasselhoff is fine in the title role, as I think you agree. I saw the show a little while ago on one of the HBO stations and am now recording its run on another HBO station. 
All the best
Chris |
|
|
|
|
