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

"............... ----- 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