Lad!

[wesw]

it takes a lot to turn that stiff upper lip into a snarl, but when it turns watch out!!!!!!

[Gob]

Yes, I'll apologise, when I find out who rubato thinks "did all the heavy lifting".

[wesw]

all this discord is crippling, like apolio .

sorry gob, I couldn t resist

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes, I'll apologise, when I find out who rubato thinks "did all the heavy lifting".

Well we already know what you think he thinks. And we know what bsg, wesw and I think he thinks. The problem is we're all likely to be correct IMO. Perfectly weighted ambiguity perhaps... but reading the link shows Red Army and UK Mossies as well as nice Lee-Enfield equipped with telescopic sights (and my that rifle could hit over a mile distance in the right hands). The blog documents activities on all fronts and by all the Allies day to day.

Mind you, it's a fact that the Red Army and the Empire forces needed without doubt the massive (and undamaged and uninvaded) production capabilities of the Johnny-come-lately-as-usual USA in order to stem the Nazi flow. In all the idolizing of the fighting men, we do tend to overlook that brave as they were, the Allied servicemen themselves owed so much to the folks back home. The best pilot in the world is useless without a fighter to fly.

I will choose to believe that rubato was speaking of all these things and if he wasn't... well, my Uncle Reg in the UK who suffered thru Changi and Burma probably would just laugh and steal his potatoes.

[Sue U]

Mind you, it's a fact that the Red Army and the Empire forces needed without doubt the massive (and undamaged and uninvaded) production capabilities of the Johnny-come-lately-as-usual USA in order to stem the Nazi flow. In all the idolizing of the fighting men, we do tend to overlook that brave as they were, the Allied servicemen themselves owed so much to the folks back home. The best pilot in the world is useless without a fighter to fly.

This.

[wesw]

really? johnny come lately? you are better than that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I know, I know. Y'all will show up on time for WW3.... third time lucky?
yrs
eeyore

[Lord Jim]

Well, I suppose it will come as a surprise to absolutely no one, but my interpretation of rube's intent is precisely the same as Strop's...

That probably wouldn't be the case with anyone else, but context matters, and the context here is the fact that belittling and sneering at British achievements and contributions in pretty much all fields has been one of rube's constant, on going nasty little provocative themes for years and years and years...(To give just one of countless examples, in just the past few days in another thread he's been busy belittling and sneering at British engineering...and who can forget his classic, "The British have had a fourth rate navy since the American Revolution")

Others are certainly free to take the most wildly optimistic interpretation of his intent, but I'm going to go with the most realistic one, based on the record...Strop's interpretation fits perfectly with that record.

As for the idea that rube is familiar with the entire content of that blog, again based on the record, that strikes me as a hugely unwarranted assumption...

On numerous occasions rube has posted links to articles that were supposed to bolster an argument he was making, but when one followed the link it soon became apparent that rube didn't even bother to read through the whole article he was linking to, let alone anything else on the website.

The far more likely explanation here, (again, given the context of the rube's record) is that rube wanted to find an article that would focus on US contributions to the WW II war effort and exclude mention of the Brits, and this is the one he picked. I seriously doubt that rube has any familiarity at all with that blog beyond that.

I'd also point out that rube posted last night, and therefore has presumably seen this exchange, so he's had an opportunity to at least claim that the wildly optimistic interpretation of his intent was the correct one, and he has declined to do so...

[MajGenl.Meade]

So, LJ, is it THIS part of Gob's post that you endorse with your entire being....

link to a article on America's involvement,

Nothing about the British.

...where he is demonstrably 100% wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, mistaken and generally totally off-beam?

Or was it the part where Gob comes back and admits he was 100% wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, mistaken and generally totally off-beam?

You seem to think the rube is required to defend himself against a false accusation and, if he doesn't, then he's obviously a defective human being.

Got any more sauce for that gander?

[Lord Jim]

Uh Gen'l, what thread are you reading? Clearly not this one...

link to a article on America's involvement,

Nothing about the British.



...where he is demonstrably 100% wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, mistaken and generally totally off-beam?

I just went back and re-read that article again...

Could you please provide the quote from that article that says anything about the British? (I don't know what you're seeing, but I'm seeing an article about three very heroic Americans.)

I see links to other articles, and some blurbs at the bottom for other articles, but I don't have any reason to believe rube ever read (or even noticed) them, let alone that it was his intent to reference them. Again, a wildly optimistic interpretation considering that we're talking about a person who has proven that he frequently can't even be bothered to read an article he links to, let alone anything else on the website.

Or was it the part where Gob comes back and admits he was 100% wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, mistaken and generally totally off-beam?

If you're seeing that in this thread then you must have helped yourself to something in Wes's medicine cabinet...

[rubato]

Fuck you to.


Did you read the post?

"I read this daily as a short reminder of how we got here and who did all the heavy lifting"

A link to a article on America's involvement,

Nothing about the British.

Funny that..... " .

http://ww2today.com/ covers the involvement of all of the allies in all theaters of the war by giving events which occurred on each day. It is organized so you can search all of the prior dated entries. At the top there are tabs for each year from 1939 up to Jan 8 1945 (today's date in 1945). There are many entries detailing events on the eastern front (Russians), and Italy, N. Africa, and France (English, U.S., Polish, French, Italian, Belgian, Norwegian &c)

and who did all the heavy lifting Was a reference to the troops in combat, conscripts and volunteers both, who did all the suffering and dying as opposed to the Generals, Politicians, Industrialists and others who didn't.


I would have thought that was obvious.


yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

I saw a daily event calendar of ww2 which rube said he read everyday to remind him who did the heavy lifting.

only weed jim, only weed. and it s in the shed.....

I did have half a glass of wine two thankgivings ago....

no more pain meds either, tho I may grow some poppies for when I really need them.

the pain management programs kinda force you to become an addict. if you don t take your meds everyday you are kicked out because they think you are selling them.

if I could only beat this ibuprofen habit I d be all set

[rubato]

Yes, I'll apologise, when I find out who rubato thinks "did all the heavy lifting".

Don't bother.

Ambrose Bierce : Apologize, v. To lay the foundation for a future offense.




yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I would have thought that was obvious.


yrs,
rubato

Not with your record it wasn't. That should have been obvious.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Uh Gen'l, what thread are you reading? Clearly not this one...

link to a article on America's involvement,
Nothing about the British.

...where he is demonstrably 100% wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, mistaken and generally totally off-beam?

I just went back and re-read that article again...

Could you please provide the quote from that article that says anything about the British? (I don't know what you're seeing, but I'm seeing an article about three very heroic Americans.)

I see links to other articles, and some blurbs at the bottom for other articles, but I don't have any reason to believe rube ever read (or even noticed) them, let alone that it was his intent to reference them. Again, a wildly optimistic interpretation considering that we're talking about a person who has proven that he frequently can't even be bothered to read an article he links to, let alone anything else on the website.

Or was it the part where Gob comes back and admits he was 100% wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, mistaken and generally totally off-beam?

If you're seeing that in this thread then you must have helped yourself to something in Wes's medicine cabinet...

You do know how a blog works, don't you LJ - a new article each day, with previous days' articles listed for people to read?

The link leads to an English blogger who chooses "this day in the war" to post what interests him. rube posted on January 7 and so (guess what?) the story of the day was January 8th Battle of the Bulge. Scroll down and look at the previous days' blog entries:

Jan 7 Battle of the Bulge
Jan 6 Kamikaze vs. USS Navy
Jan 5 Red Army
Jan 4 V2 London
Jan 3 British 6th airborne
Jan 2 RAF Bomber command
Jan 1 German Air Force
Dec 31 British Mosquitos
Dec 30 Pacific War/Luzon

So you are wrong - proven wrong - and triple-dog dared to admit it. (And you accuse rube of not reading the linked blog!)

[Lord Jim]

So you are wrong - proven wrong - and triple-dog dared to admit it.

No, I'll just repeat what I said (but I won't repeat it twice like you ):

I see links to other articles, and some blurbs at the bottom for other articles, but I don't have any reason to believe rube ever read (or even noticed) them, let alone that it was his intent to reference them. Again, a wildly optimistic interpretation considering that we're talking about a person who has proven that he frequently can't even be bothered to read an article he links to, let alone anything else on the website.

ETA:

So, I already indicated that I was quite aware of what else was on the blog, and I explained why that didn't make any difference to me in reaching my conclusion...

Which you probably would have known if you had read what I wrote before you quoted it (twice)

[Lord Jim]

Oh, and still waiting on where you saw this:

the part where Gob comes back and admits he was 100% wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, mistaken and generally totally off-beam?

[Gob]

I still call liar on rubes post above, but as I have no way of proving his intent, I will apologise.

Not to rube, but to the rest of the board, for making an unprovable assertion which spoiled a worthy thread.

(Yes, even to the head girl.)

[oldr_n_wsr]

and triple-dog dared to admit it.

And the General creates a large breach of etiquette by skipping the dare, dog-dare, double-dare, double-dog-dare, triple-dare and goes right for the throat with the sinister triple-dog-dare.

[Lord Jim]

I also call foul on Meade for cleaning up his double copy and paste post after I referenced it...