I wonder why this man continues to berate people. Why is he allowed to continue this attitude toward others? Only interested in finding out truth! v/r robert leonard

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul and Marguerite Spooner" <paulspooner@cox.net> To: <greatwar@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Military Cross winners WW1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Monks" <arethusa@shaw.ca> > To: <greatwar@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 7:32 AM > Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Military Cross winners WW1 > > >> Greetings, >> >> Not to take sides, More Power to you! >> >> Peter >> > > I rarely contribute very much to the forum but I enjoy reading the > messages. Tom Tulloch-Marshall is a valued contributor in my opinion and > has stepped in to fill the void when we lost Iian Kerr. Patrick Holland > has never written anything that I find offensive or outrageous. In fact, I > like to read his opinions. > > I suppose you may call me a bit bias because Pte G S Holland DCM and my > g'uncle, Pte E G Vaux MM are comrades and are buried a few yards apart at > Heilly Station, Somme. But please, don't call me a biased-American who > lives in the colonies. Like-wise, Patrick Holland may be a So-and-So, but > he is not an Australian So-and So. > > It is a very slippery slope to call for the removal of a person because > you don't like what they have to say. Call me a liberal, but I would > rather read someone's opinion and decide for myself. > > Paul Spooner

Greetings, Not to take sides, More Power to you! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Tulloch-Marshall" <prosearch@btinternet.com> To: <greatwar@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Military Cross winners WW1 > "............... ----- Original Message ----- From: patrick holland > and Tom says: " it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services > Personel past / present / future - alive or deceased. " ................. > " > > Sorry Claire, but this snivelling little down-underer and his constant > twisting / coniving / pathetic outbursts just get my goat - and I'm not > letting the above pass by uncorrected. I did not make the statement > selectively quoted above ................... what I said was > > > "..................... I had originally concluded that it had a) - been > posted by somebody whose knowledge of things military was so woefully > lacking that they really had no concern to be posting on GW-L (discuss), > or b) - it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services > Personnel past / present / future - alive or deceased. I had settled on > ignorance rather than insult and therefore answered in what I believed to > be an appropriate manner. " > > I make NO APOLOGY for briefly straying away from the purpose of GW-L, > because Holland does this every time he throws one of his malodorous > class-warrior rants into the ring. He seems never to have anything > constructive to say - almost never anything which is anything at all to do > with the purpose of GW-L , and in fact the only "positive" thing that I > can think to say about him is that he's well balanced - he has a chip on > both shoulders. > > I don't think he serves any purpose on GW-L, and personally I'd prefer it > if he just crawled back into his slimy pit, never to appear again. > > That's just my opinion of course. Feel free to criticise it. > > regards > - > Tom Tulloch-Marshall > WW1 Military Research > website - http://www.btinternet.com/~prosearch/index.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1030 - Release Date: > 25/09/2007 8:02 AM > >

No sweat, Tulloch-Marshall and ilk have every right to express their opinion of me. Its a pity that the quality of their remarks are so banal . They don 't deny what I say is true they just don 't like hearing it. Prove me wrong, you lot, if you want to actually contribute something to the list instead of adopting an attitude that the list belongs to the likes of you. My I suggest, that if the truth is all too much for you lot to endure then YOU could all resign from the list. Apart from Tom, in most cases your , pathetic, scant and seldom useful contributions would not be missed. If you want some idea of what my Holland family contributed to WW1 have a look at this web site http://home.it.net.au/~lambeth/holland.html and then let me look at yours. Tom, you say, " I did not make the statement selectively quoted above ................... what I said was " Well, mate, I just copied and pasted your statement from your email just as I 've done the same with this one. I did n't make it up. Your Colonel Blimp style of writing is quite distinctive. I would n't want to imitate it. Have a nice day. Patrick Holland. ( Ex RAF) Perth, Western Australia. Tom Tulloch-Marshall wrote: > "............... ----- Original Message ----- From: patrick holland > and Tom says: " it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services Personel past / present / future - alive or deceased. " ................. " > > Sorry Claire, but this snivelling little down-underer and his constant twisting / coniving / pathetic outbursts just get my goat - and I'm not letting the above pass by uncorrected. I did not make the statement selectively quoted above ................... what I said was > > > "..................... I had originally concluded that it had a) - been posted by somebody whose knowledge of things military was so woefully lacking that they really had no concern to be posting on GW-L (discuss), or b) - it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services Personnel past / present / future - alive or deceased. I had settled on ignorance rather than insult and therefore answered in what I believed to be an appropriate manner. " > > I make NO APOLOGY for briefly straying away from the purpose of GW-L, because Holland does this every time he throws one of his malodorous class-warrior rants into the ring. He seems never to have anything constructive to say - almost never anything which is anything at all to do with the purpose of GW-L , and in fact the only "positive" thing that I can think to say about him is that he's well balanced - he has a chip on both shoulders. > > I don't think he serves any purpose on GW-L, and personally I'd prefer it if he just crawled back into his slimy pit, never to appear again. > > That's just my opinion of course. Feel free to criticise it. > > regards > - > Tom Tulloch-Marshall > WW1 Military Research > website - http://www.btinternet.com/~prosearch/index.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Oh Dear, The claws are out and the hair pulling has begun, tut-tut. Put your handbags away girls this is not what the list is for. G Longmate

Over the last hundred years or so, public attitudes to many aspects of life have changed. Slavery is no longer acceptable (though still widely practiced in some countries), class distinctions are unfashionable (although still rife in some countries). We are all aware of the criticism of lions led by donkeys and we are similarly aware that at the time of WW1, class distinction was more important than it is today. Indeed it is fair to say that this war was actually responsible for many of the changes in attitude which followed in terms of attitudes to class, women etc. The fact is that the norm ninety years ago is not the norm today and nothing we say can change that. Fortunately we have, in general, learned the lessons of history and improved things. Whether we like it or not, these things happened and officers did receive an MC against an MM for other ranks. On the other hand, higher awards such as the VC went to all sections of the military. Unlike in some countries I could mention, we do not make a practice of re-writing the history books to suit the (in)sensibilities of people like Patrick Holland. It happened, it was a fact of life, live with it or turn the light off as you leave the planet. Many other things have changed, including the fact that we no longer send our criminals out to the colonies. Indeed, we could no longer do that today for the simple reason that we would be infringing the civil liberties of criminals in sending them to a land responsible for Neighbours and Home and Away! I rarely get myself involved when people like PH vent their pathetic spleen: this is a forum for sensible discussion and aid concerning WW1. Can we get back to that please even if it means barring him. After all he rarely (if ever) contributes anything worthwhile. Dennis Corbett

Well said, Tom. I fully support your original response and your assessment of Holland and his 'contributions'. Ken -----Original Message----- From: greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tom Tulloch-Marshall Sent: 25 September 2007 18:21 To: greatwar@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Military Cross winners WW1 "............... ----- Original Message ----- From: patrick holland and Tom says: " it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services Personel past / present / future - alive or deceased. " .................. " Sorry Claire, but this snivelling little down-underer and his constant twisting / coniving / pathetic outbursts just get my goat - and I'm not letting the above pass by uncorrected. I did not make the statement selectively quoted above ................... what I said was > "..................... I had originally concluded that it had a) - been posted by somebody whose knowledge of things military was so woefully lacking that they really had no concern to be posting on GW-L (discuss), or b) - it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services Personnel past / present / future - alive or deceased. I had settled on ignorance rather than insult and therefore answered in what I believed to be an appropriate manner. " I make NO APOLOGY for briefly straying away from the purpose of GW-L, because Holland does this every time he throws one of his malodorous class-warrior rants into the ring. He seems never to have anything constructive to say - almost never anything which is anything at all to do with the purpose of GW-L , and in fact the only "positive" thing that I can think to say about him is that he's well balanced - he has a chip on both shoulders. I don't think he serves any purpose on GW-L, and personally I'd prefer it if he just crawled back into his slimy pit, never to appear again. That's just my opinion of course. Feel free to criticise it. regards - Tom Tulloch-Marshall WW1 Military Research website - http://www.btinternet.com/~prosearch/index.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

"............... ----- Original Message ----- From: patrick holland and Tom says: " it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services Personel past / present / future - alive or deceased. " ................. " Sorry Claire, but this snivelling little down-underer and his constant twisting / coniving / pathetic outbursts just get my goat - and I'm not letting the above pass by uncorrected. I did not make the statement selectively quoted above ................... what I said was > "..................... I had originally concluded that it had a) - been posted by somebody whose knowledge of things military was so woefully lacking that they really had no concern to be posting on GW-L (discuss), or b) - it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services Personnel past / present / future - alive or deceased. I had settled on ignorance rather than insult and therefore answered in what I believed to be an appropriate manner. " I make NO APOLOGY for briefly straying away from the purpose of GW-L, because Holland does this every time he throws one of his malodorous class-warrior rants into the ring. He seems never to have anything constructive to say - almost never anything which is anything at all to do with the purpose of GW-L , and in fact the only "positive" thing that I can think to say about him is that he's well balanced - he has a chip on both shoulders. I don't think he serves any purpose on GW-L, and personally I'd prefer it if he just crawled back into his slimy pit, never to appear again. That's just my opinion of course. Feel free to criticise it. regards - Tom Tulloch-Marshall WW1 Military Research website - http://www.btinternet.com/~prosearch/index.html

As one wise historian said, "studying history is like visiting a foreign country." Judgements based on present day mores don't necessarily apply... LGS ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Hi Ken, Hope you are well. Mr. Holland is a pot stirrer and needs to be dropped from the list. He's been on my blocked senders list for years. Janice USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Lees" <lees.ken@btinternet.com> To: <greatwar@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Military Cross winners WW1 > Well said, Tom. I fully support your original response and your assessment > of Holland and his 'contributions'. > > Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Tom Tulloch-Marshall > Sent: 25 September 2007 18:21 > To: greatwar@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Military Cross winners WW1 > > "............... ----- Original Message ----- From: patrick holland > and Tom says: " it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services > Personel past / present / future - alive or deceased. " .................. > " > > Sorry Claire, but this snivelling little down-underer and his constant > twisting / coniving / pathetic outbursts just get my goat - and I'm not > letting the above pass by uncorrected. I did not make the statement > selectively quoted above ................... what I said was > > > "..................... I had originally concluded that it had a) - been > posted by somebody whose knowledge of things military was so woefully > lacking that they really had no concern to be posting on GW-L (discuss), > or > b) - it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services Personnel > past / present / future - alive or deceased. I had settled on ignorance > rather than insult and therefore answered in what I believed to be an > appropriate manner. " > > I make NO APOLOGY for briefly straying away from the purpose of GW-L, > because Holland does this every time he throws one of his malodorous > class-warrior rants into the ring. He seems never to have anything > constructive to say - almost never anything which is anything at all to do > with the purpose of GW-L , and in fact the only "positive" thing that I > can > think to say about him is that he's well balanced - he has a chip on both > shoulders. > > I don't think he serves any purpose on GW-L, and personally I'd prefer it > if > he just crawled back into his slimy pit, never to appear again. > > That's just my opinion of course. Feel free to criticise it. > > regards > - > Tom Tulloch-Marshall > WW1 Military Research > website - http://www.btinternet.com/~prosearch/index.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Forrest says: " He probably belongs to the school of thought which highly disapproves of the term win/winner/won when it comes to gallantry medals. " and Tom says: " it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services Personel past / present / future - alive or deceased. " While being overly concerned about the semantics of this topic , nobody has referred to the school of thought to which I belong which is the school that believes that to make a distinction about the quality of one man 's bravery against another's by awarding one man a military cross while another gets a military medal, based purely on the difference in their rank is despicable. It is good to see that the earlier differentiation, derived one assumes from a pathetic, upstairs downstairs, mentality of the donors towards the recipients has been amended so that nowadays all men, irrespective of their rank, are awarded a military cross and the military medal is now redundant. I wonder if that means that the weird practice by which those who have served in the military with a rank of Captain and above are allowed to use their military rank for the rest of their civilian lives will also become redundant. The only point in it that I can see is that it perpetuates a , them and us , mentality. Sad ain't it ? Have a nice day. Patrick holland. Perth, Western Australia. J L Flemington wrote: > Many thanks, Forrest, for clarifying the point which I was trying to make. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Forrest Anderson > Sent: 24 September 2007 14:09 > To: GREATWAR-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Military Cross winners WW1 > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:58:22 +0100, "J L Flemington" > <flemington.jim@talktalk.net> wrote: > > >> Who wins a Military Cross? Do they have a competition? >> > > >> If a Military Cross is awarded posthumously who is the winner? >> > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:50:31 -0400, " Bill Hine" <bhine@sympatico.ca> > wrote: > > >> I think that whoever sent the message was being somewhat facetious. Much in >> > > >> the vein of a peacenik. Bill, Canada. >> > > I believe that Jim Flemington was taking issue with the subject of the > thread - Military Cross *Winners*. He probably belongs to the school > of thought which highly disapproves of the term win/winner/won when it > comes to gallantry medals. > > Forrest > >

Absolutely agree, and that's why some of us came to the colonies!! Now, back to Great War matters please. Peter

Many thanks, Forrest, for clarifying the point which I was trying to make. Jim -----Original Message----- From: greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Anderson Sent: 24 September 2007 14:09 To: GREATWAR-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Military Cross winners WW1 On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:58:22 +0100, "J L Flemington" <flemington.jim@talktalk.net> wrote: >Who wins a Military Cross? Do they have a competition? >If a Military Cross is awarded posthumously who is the winner? On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:50:31 -0400, " Bill Hine" <bhine@sympatico.ca> wrote: >I think that whoever sent the message was being somewhat facetious. Much in >the vein of a peacenik. Bill, Canada. I believe that Jim Flemington was taking issue with the subject of the thread - Military Cross *Winners*. He probably belongs to the school of thought which highly disapproves of the term win/winner/won when it comes to gallantry medals. Forrest -- Forrest Anderson, Edinburgh, Scotland. E-mail: forrest@military-researcher.com Website: www.military-researcher.com Forrestdale Research - Military Genealogical Researcher ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:01:48 +0100, "Tom Tulloch-Marshall" <prosearch@btinternet.com> wrote: >Forrest - I see that now that he has explained himself... Tom Since I had once been criticized for using the term "win" in one of my own messages many years ago, I was able to see what Jim was getting at. Another phrase which upsets some people is to refer to medals being issued, rather than being awarded. Forrest -- Forrest Anderson, Edinburgh, Scotland. E-mail: forrest@military-researcher.com Website: www.military-researcher.com Forrestdale Research - Military Genealogical Researcher

I think I agree with Tom on his answer, but you should get confirmation if you can get the medal card of Cadet Pilot (Flight Lieutenant) Ross Ambrose Harrison, #74695, He was serving with the RFC 78th Training Squadron, 42nd Wing, when he was killed in an airplane accident at Camp Evermans, Texas, on December 23rd, 1917. Peter

"......... ----- Original Message ----- From: Forrest Anderson I believe that Jim Flemington was taking issue with the subject of the thread - Military Cross *Winners*. He probably belongs to the school of thought which highly disapproves of the term win/winner/won when it comes to gallantry medals. Forrest " Forrest - I see that now that he has explained himself, but the original message was (to my mind) pretty over-the-top, and I had originally concluded that it had a) - been posted by somebody whose knowlege of things military was so woefully lacking that they really had no concern to be posting on GW-L (discuss), or b) - it was a thinly veiled insult directed at British Services Personel past / present / future - alive or deceased. I had settled on ignorance rather than insult and therefore answered in what I believed to be an appropriate manner. If I had settled on "intended insult" then my response would have been quite different. regards - Tom Tulloch-Marshall WW1 Military Research website - http://www.btinternet.com/~prosearch/index.html

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:58:22 +0100, "J L Flemington" <flemington.jim@talktalk.net> wrote: >Who wins a Military Cross? Do they have a competition? >If a Military Cross is awarded posthumously who is the winner? On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:50:31 -0400, " Bill Hine" <bhine@sympatico.ca> wrote: >I think that whoever sent the message was being somewhat facetious. Much in >the vein of a peacenik. Bill, Canada. I believe that Jim Flemington was taking issue with the subject of the thread - Military Cross *Winners*. He probably belongs to the school of thought which highly disapproves of the term win/winner/won when it comes to gallantry medals. Forrest -- Forrest Anderson, Edinburgh, Scotland. E-mail: forrest@military-researcher.com Website: www.military-researcher.com Forrestdale Research - Military Genealogical Researcher

My objection is to the use of the term "winner" in the subject heading. Jim -----Original Message----- From: greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:greatwar-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tom Tulloch-Marshall Sent: 24 September 2007 09:29 To: greatwar@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [GREATWAR] Military Cross winners WW1 ".................. ----- Original Message ----- Who wins a Military Cross? Do they have a competition? If a Military Cross is awarded posthumously who is the winner? " ............................................................................ ............................................................ I'm a bit worried about this message, which I assume to relate to the British Military Cross. With some minor (and mainly early issue) exceptions the MC is a prestigious gallantry award and was never the subject of any kind of "competition" or posthumous lottery. A good illustration and brief description of the MC is on the MoD website at > http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceFor/Veterans/Medals/MilitaryCrossmc .htm You will find conflicting references to (the possibility of) posthumous awards on the www, including Wikipedia (does anybody still believe a word in that "database" ????) - but officially the first posthumous MC was awarded to Captain G Hamilton of the Green Howards (SAS) in the London Gazette of 8/10/1982. During WW1 a potential recipient had to be alive at the time of the recommendation. In many cases during WW1, awards of the MC announced in the LG are accompanied by the term "since died/killed in action" in brackets after the name, but these are not posthumous awards - the key word being "since". regards - Tom Tulloch-Marshall WW1 Military Research website - http://www.btinternet.com/~prosearch/index.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GREATWAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

".................. ----- Original Message ----- Who wins a Military Cross? Do they have a competition? If a Military Cross is awarded posthumously who is the winner? " ........................................................................................................................................ I'm a bit worried about this message, which I assume to relate to the British Military Cross. With some minor (and mainly early issue) exceptions the MC is a prestigious gallantry award and was never the subject of any kind of "competition" or posthumous lottery. A good illustration and brief description of the MC is on the MoD website at > http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceFor/Veterans/Medals/MilitaryCrossmc.htm You will find conflicting references to (the possibility of) posthumous awards on the www, including Wikipedia (does anybody still believe a word in that "database" ????) - but officially the first posthumous MC was awarded to Captain G Hamilton of the Green Howards (SAS) in the London Gazette of 8/10/1982. During WW1 a potential recipient had to be alive at the time of the recommendation. In many cases during WW1, awards of the MC announced in the LG are accompanied by the term "since died/killed in action" in brackets after the name, but these are not posthumous awards - the key word being "since". regards - Tom Tulloch-Marshall WW1 Military Research website - http://www.btinternet.com/~prosearch/index.html

Bill - my understanding is that Canadian servicemen during WW1 had "qualifying overseas service" if they reached the UK (whereas a British serviceman had to have service outside the UK in a "qualifying country" - principally war zones). I don't think that service in the USA would qualify a Canadian for the British War Medal ------------- but stranger things have happened ! I'd stick with "no", but you really need somebody with knowledge of the Canadian issue regs to confirm this. regards - Tom Tulloch-Marshall WW1 Military Research website - http://www.btinternet.com/~prosearch/index.html