RE: 'No Patton' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/29/2004 3:30:27 AM)

I don't have a problem with including the Soviet commanders, I think Zhukov was a fine commander (okay, I know he's the best known[;)]). I have to say that I'd not heard of Lelyushenko before, so would this be Dmitry Lelyushenko, commander of the 21st Mechanised Corps in 1941? I only ask because I did a Google search and his name pops up in an article at - http://www.redarmystudies.net/0411030.htm



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 1:10:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I know what you're referring to but I'd like to keep it to the Dietrich thread rather than have this one derailed too[:)] Please.


You mean the same way the other thread has been derailed by several of you [;)]


This is unnecessary and unbecoming of a man of your intelligence and erudition. I respect your views and opinions even if I don't agree with them[;)]. Please let us keep things civil.



LOL

Where was this opinion in the last three pages of the "Sepp" thread?




It seems some people just have to have the last word...



a19999577:


First, my posts were made in reply to posts being addressed to me. Considering that you and everyone else also post replies when being addressed, your comment is highly selective and uncalled for.

Second, who are you to tell Kevinugly and myself, when, and to whom, we may address a post?

Have a nice day. . .



Hertston -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 1:29:26 AM)

Nimitz.

When I've got more time I might come back with a long post why.



a19999577 -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 3:05:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I know what you're referring to but I'd like to keep it to the Dietrich thread rather than have this one derailed too[:)] Please.


You mean the same way the other thread has been derailed by several of you [;)]


This is unnecessary and unbecoming of a man of your intelligence and erudition. I respect your views and opinions even if I don't agree with them[;)]. Please let us keep things civil.



LOL

Where was this opinion in the last three pages of the "Sepp" thread?




It seems some people just have to have the last word...



a19999577:


First, my posts were made in reply to posts being addressed to me. Considering that you and everyone else also post replies when being addressed, your comment is highly selective and uncalled for.

Second, who are you to tell Kevinugly and myself, when, and to whom, we may address a post?

Have a nice day. . .



Thanks for proving my point. [:)]

Have a nice day too.

PS: And please don't think I've overlooked the fact that you've deleted your final remark and eye-rolling in your previous post, which makes you look a lot more 'happy-go-lucky' and thus makes me look somewhat recalcitrant.



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 4:25:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I know what you're referring to but I'd like to keep it to the Dietrich thread rather than have this one derailed too[:)] Please.


You mean the same way the other thread has been derailed by several of you [;)]


This is unnecessary and unbecoming of a man of your intelligence and erudition. I respect your views and opinions even if I don't agree with them[;)]. Please let us keep things civil.



LOL

Where was this opinion in the last three pages of the "Sepp" thread?




It seems some people just have to have the last word...



a19999577:


First, my posts were made in reply to posts being addressed to me. Considering that you and everyone else also post replies when being addressed, your comment is highly selective and uncalled for.

Second, who are you to tell Kevinugly and myself, when, and to whom, we may address a post?

Have a nice day. . .


[NOTE: Edited for space]


Thanks for proving my point. [:)]

your previous post makes you look a lot more 'happy-go-lucky' and thus makes me look somewhat recalcitrant.



I see you have to have the last word too, so welcome to the club. [;)]

Therefore, you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse others of doing [;)]

You jumped into the middle of a conversation, expressing highly selective comments, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with you.

If your gratutious comments make you look recalcitrant, then you have only yourself to blame.

And yes, I am a very "happy go lucky guy" [:D]

The comments between Kevinugly and myself were all expressed in good fun. We have bantered quite a bit in the past, so we are used to each other.

Have a nice day.



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 5:46:57 AM)

Now I know that as well as you do VR, and I hope a good night's sleep finds you refreshed. However, I'm sure you've read Vic's 'comment' when he locked up the 'Dietrich' thread so maybe we should ensure our banter is as overt as possible.

Anyway, since this is a 'No Patton' thread (NO PATTON I SAID!!) and, hopefully, a 'praise' rather than 'damn' a commander discussion, I would be interested to know whether there are any other Allied commanders you would rate (apart from P****n[;)])?



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:16:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Now I know that as well as you do VR, and I hope a good night's sleep finds you refreshed. However, I'm sure you've read Vic's 'comment' when he locked up the 'Dietrich' thread so maybe we should ensure our banter is as overt as possible.

Anyway, since this is a 'No Patton' thread (NO PATTON I SAID!!) and, hopefully, a 'praise' rather than 'damn' a commander discussion, I would be interested to know whether there are any other Allied commanders you would rate (apart from P****n[;)])?


Heheh

See what happens when someone tries to come between us [;)]

So maybe we really do like each other [:D]

I'm not one to bear a grudge.

But I also believe in fair play.

Before I mention another commander I would like to see who else others think is good.

Cheers!



Sarge -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:25:55 AM)

Ok Von Rom you asked for it . What about McAuliffe acting commander of the 101st in the Battle of the Bulge. I can't think of a bigger resonsibility then McAuliffe was handed in Bastoge as Gen. Taylor was in Washington. And spare me the Patton save the day BS. The 101st held that line . OMG I got sucked in agian.....lol

[image]local://upfiles/8678/Jh159344464.gif[/image]



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:27:47 AM)

quote:

Heheh

See what happens when someone tries to come between us

So maybe we really do like each other


C'mon, we don't want to give a wrong impression here do we[;)]

quote:

Before I mention another commander I would like to see who else others think is good.


As long as everybody else who may contribute doesn't feel the same way that's okay by me[:)]

After Hertston threw Nimitz into the pot it got me thinking about the Pacific Campaign so I'll throw in Raymond Spruance although, like Hertston, I'll have to leave my reasoning to a later date (i.e. when I'm not [>:])



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:28:57 AM)

Sarge, don't encourage him pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease[:D]



Sarge -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:35:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Sarge, don't encourage him pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease[:D]

Your right he will come back with a HUGE post on how holding the line at Bastogne was a cake walk compared to Kasserine Pass or along that line.



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:56:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Ok Von Rom you asked for it . What about McAuliffe acting commander of the 101st in the Battle of the Bulge. I can't think of a bigger resonsibility then McAuliffe was handed in Bastoge as Gen. Taylor was in Washington. And spare me the Patton save the day BS. The 101st held that line . OMG I got sucked in agian.....lol



I asked for it? [8|]

You're absolutely right about the 101st. The Germans simply couldn't break into Bastogne; the 101st beat off every attack.

I am surprised that more is not said about it. Where are the movies about this episode of the Ardennes?

I have NEVER said that Patton saved the day. YOU keep accusing me of uttering those words.


So please calm down and read this post carefully.

I have said this before but somehow you keep missing it:

Patton NEVER considered Bastogne to be a key objective. NEVER.

He wanted to cut-off the Germans at the salient and bag them all.

However, he was ORDERED by Ike and Bradley to relieve Bastogne. Patton argued AGAINST it. But to no avail.

Did you understand that?

Let me repeat:

Patton was ORDERED by Ike and Bradley to relieve Bastogne.

Patton NEVER considered Bastogne to be a key objective. NEVER.


When faced with this order, Patton suggested that in addition to sending 50,000 men to relieve Bastogne, he could also send another 50,000 to close off the salient at the same time.

Nope, it was Bastogne or nothing.

So please, before you accuse me of "BS" please get your facts straight.

Even so, by the time Third Army arrived at Bastogne, the 101st had plenty of wounded that needed to be evacuated and they were very low on ammo and food. And they were mighty glad to see Third Army.

You see, even the bravest of men cannot fight without food and ammo in the dead of winter. [;)]

Surely, in all the books you have read about the fighting at Bastogne, you would know all of this. [;)]

Have a nice day. [;)]



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:57:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Sarge, don't encourage him pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease[:D]


Too late. . . [:D]



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 7:00:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Sarge, don't encourage him pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease[:D]

Your right he will come back with a HUGE post on how holding the line at Bastogne was a cake walk compared to Kasserine Pass or along that line.


That is just plain insulting. [:-]

Please read my posts CAREFULLY in the future to get your facts straight.



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 7:28:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Ok Von Rom you asked for it . What about McAuliffe acting commander of the 101st in the Battle of the Bulge. I can't think of a bigger resonsibility then McAuliffe was handed in Bastoge as Gen. Taylor was in Washington. And spare me the Patton save the day BS. The 101st held that line . OMG I got sucked in agian.....lol



I asked for it? [8|]

You're absolutely right about the 101st. The Germans simply couldn't break into Bastogne; the 101st beat off every attack.

I am surprised that more is not said about it. Where are the movies about this episode of the Ardennes?

I have NEVER said that Patton saved the day. YOU keep accusing me of uttering those words.


So please calm down and read this post carefully.

I have said this before but somehow you keep missing it:

Patton NEVER considered Bastogne to be a key objective. NEVER.

He wanted to cut-off the Germans at the salient and bag them all.

However, he was ORDERED by Ike and Bradley to relieve Bastogne. Patton argued AGAINST it. But to no avail.

Did you understand that?

Let me repeat:

Patton was ORDERED by Ike and Bradley to relieve Bastogne.

Patton NEVER considered Bastogne to be a key objective. NEVER.


When faced with this order, Patton suggested that in addition to sending 50,000 men to relieve Bastogne, he could also send another 50,000 to close off the salient at the same time.

Nope, it was Bastogne or nothing.

So please, before you accuse me of "BS" please get your facts straight.

Even so, by the time Third Army arrived at Bastogne, the 101st had plenty of wounded that needed to be evacuated and they were very low on ammo and food. And they were mighty glad to see Third Army.

You see, even the bravest of men cannot fight without food and ammo in the dead of winter. [;)]

Surely, in all the books you have read about the fighting at Bastogne, you would know all of this. [;)]

Have a nice day. [;)]


Here is what Patton wanted to do in the Ardennes RATHER than relieve Bastogne:

"The more Patton thought about the German bulge into the American lines, the more he thought that the best thing to do would be to let the Germans penetrate for 40 or 50 miles, and then make a bold move to cut them off in their rear and destroy their entire thrust" (Martin Blumenson & George S. Patton, The Patton Papers 1940-1945; Da Capo Press; (October 1, 1996); p.598).

Patton believed that capturing villages and towns was useless. Instead, "The purpose of our operations is to kill or capture the German personnel and vehicles. . . so that they cannot retreat and repeat their opposition" (Martin Blumenson & George S. Patton, The Patton Papers 1940-1945; Da Capo Press; (October 1, 1996); p.589).

Further:

"Where others at Verdun came with only vague ideas and without specific plans, Patton had devised three plans, each tailored to meet any contingency that his superiors might direct. . . . While near panic existed elsewhere, in the Third Army there existed a belief in a magnificent opportunity to strike a killing blow" (D'Este, Carlo, Patton: A Genius For War, Harper-Collins, 1995, p.680).

Understand now?



Sarge -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:07:43 AM)

Ya I completely understand what Patton wanted to do.



Sarge -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:23:09 AM)

Oh ya and what about that idea of letting the Germans penetrate 40 -50 miles in passed the lines. That a good one only if you could give two sh@ts about the men that are in that 40 - 50 miles range .



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:33:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Ya I completely understand what Patton wanted to do. Von in the dark Rom I read the books and they all say one thing, Patton could have cared less there that 101st AB boys were fighting with NO ammo -NO winter clothing -NO food - NO aid station- and NO medical supplies. The FACT they had to argue and then in the end still have to order the glory hound to move his ass to Bastogne to relive the 101st is testament of his character, Thats what you call a outstanding leader. Ya I understand , and by the way I didnt need to READ the books to get the facts I got it from one of those 101st Boys that were fighting at Bastogne when Patton was arguing, My Grandfather. Its a joke you will put up a aguement with your only case is that Patton was a self serving ass. Now you have a nice day


More insults?

Sarge,

You now have me completely baffled.

You have contradicted yourself.

First you accuse me of claiming that Patton saved the day at Bastogne. According to you, your grandfather, and all those books you read, the 101st DIDN'T NEED to be saved.

Now, you have changed your story, and now you're claiming that the "101st AB boys were fighting with NO ammo -NO winter clothing -NO food - NO aid station- and NO medical supplies". Thus, according to you the 101st NEEDED to be rescued.

Which is it?

Either way, Patton DID come to the relief of Bastogne and in record time:

Of Patton's drive in the Battle of the Bulge, General Omar N. Bradley stated it was "one of the most astonishing feats of generalship of our campaign in the west". Patton turned his forces quickly northward at ninety degrees, travelled 100 miles in 48 hours in the worst winter weather to hit the Ardennes in decades, and then engaged the southern flank of the bulge and helped contain the enemy. (Pogue, Forrest C. The Supreme Command, Washington D. C.: Center of Military History, United States Government Printing Office, 1989; p.381.)



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:35:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Oh ya and what about that idea of letting the Germans penetrate 40 -50 miles in passed the lines. That a good one only if you could give two sh@ts about the men that are in that 40 - 50 miles range .


It's called strategy and bagging ALL the Germans in the bulge salient.

Because this wasn't done, and because of Ike's strategy of just pushing back the Germans, many more thousands of GIs lost their lives. I'm glad your grandfather wasn't one of them.



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 2:47:35 PM)

Okay, you win, thread successfully derailed[:)]

I think I'll 'observe' for a while 'til Senor Kevlar wanders in and locks this one up too[8D]



Muzrub -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 3:58:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Moving on swiftly[;)], my reading of the Italian contribution to Rommel's campaigns is that the two armoured divisions, 'Trieste' and 'Ariete', performed quite creditably.

"LIBYA

May 31 - Italian guns inflict heavy losses on the British near Sidra Ridge. The Ariete pound the II and XXII Armoured Brigade. Bastico reports "The Italian XX Corps fought well, the DAK, not so well. The 90th Light was in retreat."

June 1 - Rommels Axis forces break through the Gazala line, destroying 100 British tanks and taking 3,000 British POW's.

June 5 - 6 - British Commonwealth forces mount a major counteroffensive code named "Aberdeen". The Italian X Corps holds them up in the North and the Trieste and 90th Light contain the French at Bir Hacheim. The Ariete joins the 15th and 21st Panzer to battle the 42nd and 7th Royal Tank Regiments, including the II, IV and XXII Armoured, IX and X Indian and the CCI Guards brigades. The Ariete and Italian artillery repulse the British at Sidra and Aslagh ridges. Italian forces account for 60 to 168 cruiser and 60 'I" tanks lost by the Commonwealth forces between June 5 and 6.

June 7 - Italian forces rescue the German XV Brigade near Gazala."

I therefore nominate Generals Baldassarre and Gioda into the pantheon of Italian commanders who performed creditably.

Two more to go!!! [:D]



Hans Von Luck blamed poor leadership and faith in Italian troops which lead to them being seen as bad soldiers.
He believed they fought well on many occasions and deserved more support.



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 4:53:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Okay, you win, thread successfully derailed[:)]

I think I'll 'observe' for a while 'til Senor Kevlar wanders in and locks this one up too[8D]


I, at least, am showing remarkable restraint here [;)]. I will not be mentioning the P***** word.

A brief remark about Bastogne, it took five days of fighting to reach, and a couple of weeks to clear the Germans away from. It was the key road hub to the southern thrust of the Bulge offensive. Without it, the Germans would not achieve their Operational objectives and as such, it had to be defended to the last. This made it the correct operational objective for 3rd Army (That's as close to the P**** word as I shall come). In retrospect, the defence by 101st was such that the Germans could not take it in time to make it useful, but I don't think SHAEF would have anticipated that the 101st would have done what they did. The 101st performed exellently in Normandy, but I don't think SHAEF had a right to expect any Allied Division to hold out at Bastogne for very long, so without hindsight, the decision to go for Bastogne was the correct one.

Any offensive further east with just the three divisions used would have failed, bearing in mind how much trouble they got in the drive on Bastogne. Also, without any corresponding attack from the north (which wasn't about to come) then any drive further east would have had to go right across the base of the Bulge from north to south. It would have looked a bit like Kursk, and such a drive wasn't on. I personally think it would have stopped the German offensive as they'd have looked nervously over their shoulder, but it would have run into major difficulties as the German units which historically were withdrawn from the north to fight for Bastogne, would have been diverted against it's exposed flanks instead.

So, having not mentioned the P***** word, there is only the praise section to go. The Russians did produce several notable Commanders by war's end. Zhukov is the one that I really can't make my end up about, though. On the one hand, you have successful defences of Moscow and Leningrad, on the other the debacle in front of the Seelowe heights, the disaster of Operation Mars. etc. I sometimes think he was far too callous with men's lives. I then think maybe he realised that the only advantage the Soviets had was numbers, and that by throwing large ill trained masses against the German formations, he would wear them down and buy time, which was eventually what happened. Anyone any thoughts?

For the western Allies, I can only say I just don't get too impressed by the Army Commanders, and would look at the Corp level for the real stars. I don't think the allies produced an Army Commander rounded enough to be called great, and they produced some (eg, Clark) who really disappoint. They were saved by various things, and certainly weren't so bad that they could throw their advantages away. I just think they never made the most of the advantages they had, and it was in that that the war in NW Europe lasted 11 months.

Regards,
IronDuke



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:11:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Okay, you win, thread successfully derailed[:)]

I think I'll 'observe' for a while 'til Senor Kevlar wanders in and locks this one up too[8D]


I beg your pardon?

It was the UNFOUNDED statements addressed to me by others in this thread which prompted my remarks.

However, by now I have learned not to expect any even-handedness by others.

It seems that any insult and unsubstantiated remarks can be thrown my way, and that seems to be OK. . .



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:25:42 PM)

Come come Von Rom, it was 'you' in the plural not 'you' the individual. In any case 'Check the Smilies'[:)]. I'll continue to 'observe' to see whether the thread gets back on track.



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:31:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Okay, you win, thread successfully derailed[:)]

I think I'll 'observe' for a while 'til Senor Kevlar wanders in and locks this one up too[8D]


I, at least, am showing remarkable restraint here [;)]. I will not be mentioning the P***** word.

A brief remark about Bastogne, it took five days of fighting to reach, and a couple of weeks to clear the Germans away from. It was the key road hub to the southern thrust of the Bulge offensive. Without it, the Germans would not achieve their Operational objectives and as such, it had to be defended to the last. This made it the correct operational objective for 3rd Army (That's as close to the P**** word as I shall come). In retrospect, the defence by 101st was such that the Germans could not take it in time to make it useful, but I don't think SHAEF would have anticipated that the 101st would have done what they did. The 101st performed exellently in Normandy, but I don't think SHAEF had a right to expect any Allied Division to hold out at Bastogne for very long, so without hindsight, the decision to go for Bastogne was the correct one.

Any offensive further east with just the three divisions used would have failed, bearing in mind how much trouble they got in the drive on Bastogne. Also, without any corresponding attack from the north (which wasn't about to come) then any drive further east would have had to go right across the base of the Bulge from north to south. It would have looked a bit like Kursk, and such a drive wasn't on. I personally think it would have stopped the German offensive as they'd have looked nervously over their shoulder, but it would have run into major difficulties as the German units which historically were withdrawn from the north to fight for Bastogne, would have been diverted against it's exposed flanks instead.

So, having not mentioned the P***** word, there is only the praise section to go. The Russians did produce several notable Commanders by war's end. Zhukov is the one that I really can't make my end up about, though. On the one hand, you have successful defences of Moscow and Leningrad, on the other the debacle in front of the Seelowe heights, the disaster of Operation Mars. etc. I sometimes think he was far too callous with men's lives. I then think maybe he realised that the only advantage the Soviets had was numbers, and that by throwing large ill trained masses against the German formations, he would wear them down and buy time, which was eventually what happened. Anyone any thoughts?

For the western Allies, I can only say I just don't get too impressed by the Army Commanders, and would look at the Corp level for the real stars. I don't think the allies produced an Army Commander rounded enough to be called great, and they produced some (eg, Clark) who really disappoint. They were saved by various things, and certainly weren't so bad that they could throw their advantages away. I just think they never made the most of the advantages they had, and it was in that that the war in NW Europe lasted 11 months.

Regards,
IronDuke




ID:

Bastogne


BTW, in case you weren't aware of it, your mentioning of Bastogne and Patton has also derailed this thread. [;)]

Your explanation of Bastogne and the Bulge, as usual, is fraught with inaccuracy, and fails, as did Ike, to see the Bulge in its entirety, and where the KILLING blow SHOULD have been dealt.

As a result of the Bastogne strategy (Sarge claims the 101st didn't need to be saved) the Allies lost many more thousands of lives in pushing the Germans back in FRONTAL battles. Yet this seesm to have missed your attention.

Patton's strategy of moving east behind the German salient would have cut them ALL off from retreat; would have cut them off from supply; would have captured most of the Germans; and would have resulted in far fewer Allied casualties.

Patton never failed to accomplish any mission given to him.

Even so, Patton wanted to push for Bastogne AND get behind the salient.

But please don't let the facts stand in the way of your opinions. . .


Zhukov

He did quite well. However, given the fact that Stalin didn't care how many Soviet soldiers' lives it took to take objectives, I think one should approach this commander with caution.


Other European Commanders:

There were actually a lot of excellent division level commanders in the Allied armies.



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 6:34:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Come come Von Rom, it was 'you' in the plural not 'you' the individual. In any case 'Check the Smilies'[:)]. I'll continue to 'observe' to see whether the thread gets back on track.


Perhaps you should direct your comments also to Sarge and Ironduke [;)]

But I have stopped expecting ANY even handedness.



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 7:18:24 PM)

It was directed at everyone. Stop being so ****ly! If I wish to direct a comment at your good self I'll address it 'to VR' or similar[;)].

Seriously guys, when Vic locked the Dietrich thread he mentioned setting an 'example'! Now I'd rather it wasn't me, Von Rom, Iron Duke, Sarge or anyone else who has contested (is that the best word?) the last few big threads. Now I blame no-one but I see this thread heading the same way as the Patton threads and the Dietrich one. Now I've said all that I need to say about Patton and all that I can say about Dietrich at present. Now let's draw a line, make a fresh start and leave Patton etc. behind us. That was my purpose in starting this thread.[8D]



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 7:20:15 PM)

Now that is weird, apparently I can't write p.r.i.c.k.l.y without whatever programme they're using here editing it[:)]



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 7:26:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It was directed at everyone. Stop being so ****ly! If I wish to direct a comment at your good self I'll address it 'to VR' or similar[;)].

Seriously guys, when Vic locked the Dietrich thread he mentioned setting an 'example'! Now I'd rather it wasn't me, Von Rom, Iron Duke, Sarge or anyone else who has contested (is that the best word?) the last few big threads. Now I blame no-one but I see this thread heading the same way as the Patton threads and the Dietrich one. Now I've said all that I need to say about Patton and all that I can say about Dietrich at present. Now let's draw a line, make a fresh start and leave Patton etc. behind us. That was my purpose in starting this thread.[8D]



Personal insults were hurled my way in this thread by several individuals.

And I am being silly?

Please address your remarks to EVERYONE in the future, and not just after I post, and with the word "you".

If this thread is closed, it is because of the complete lack of civility and manners that some seem unable to express here.



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 7:29:20 PM)

Okay VR, I've done my best but I can see that it's not good enough.[:(]

Good luck (to everyone)



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.96875