Sunday, July 13, 2014

It's not just The Flaggers ----

It seems that Simpson, Hall, and Levin are unable to hide their glee over the removal of the flags at
W&L University.


They also are unable to hide their contempt for the Virginia Flaggers.

In the latest round of 
The Terrible Trio directly associate the removal of the flags at W&L with a defeat of the Flaggers.
You can see it  HERE .

The thing I wish to make known is this --
" It's not just a defeat for the Flaggers"
"It's a defeat for EVERYONE"
The Alumni, The Students, The public in general.
How on earth can you expand on history by taking something away ?

I also have a DIRECT question for The Committee, Hall, Simpson, & Levin.
What about, Diversity, Tolerance, and Understanding ?
It appears to me it's a situation that is
and being such leads to a.
OK Committee, Simpson, Hall, Levin, here is your chance--
Please explain how the removal of the flags is a positive thing that enhances


  1. They're not big on answering challenges, trust me I know from experience.

  2. The only time I hear from em is when I make a mistake, Lord knows I've made a few of em.

  3. I answered a previous challenge, Carl chose to run away.

    To answer your question Dav,

    What has transpired here is an amplification of history. The history of the flags in the chapel/museum, is now narrow and contextual. Additionally, the flag will be real! Which is outstanding. Lee's legacy is in tact, very much so as the President pointed out. The President in the response quite literally stated that they will not apologize for Robert E. Lee's Presidency of Washington and Lee Univ. So I mean? Where is the beef really? Where are the cries of tolerance/diversity etc. actually coming from? History, real history, is preserved and now highlighted.

    1. From the Old Virginia blog: "Some Boston bloggers are deflecting some of the criticisms about this issue by trumpeting the fact that W & L will be displaying the original flags in the museum below Lee Chapel. So? That could have been done without removing the other flags."

    2. The cries of Diversity, Tolerance, Understanding are from ME !
      The university did not remove the flags for historical accuracy, they removed the flags to satisfy a small group of malcontents, who using the color of their skin created a shield that prevents them from being called out on the matter. ( Except for me, I have no problem defending some one who is attacked because of the color of their skin, BUT I do have a problem with people who use it as an excuse or convenient shield to launch attacks ! ) That is why I'm asking about Diversity.
      You know good and well had the Committee not DEMANDED the flags be removed, they would still be in place. That's why I ask about Tolerance !
      The enhancement of history ( the replica ? flags ) was not deceptive in nature !
      No effort was made to present them for anything other than what they were.
      That's why I ask about Understanding.
      Thanks for your honest reply Rob, you are the only one I expected to hear from.

    3. Well I did expect to hear from a fellow in the Phantom Zone, I guess his computer is broken so he will have to go to work and send a comment.

  4. Rob, the flags that were hanging in the alcove were real. Don't confuse "historic" and "real." They were real flags, made out of, you know, like CLOTH, and SEWED TOGETHER like real flags are, and they were on flag staffs like real flags ... because they were REAL FLAGS.

    This "replica" crap pushed by the floggers is just that. Crap.

    As was pointed out on the Old Virginia blog, the historic flags could have been put in the museum for "interpretation" without removing the flags from the alcove.

    Narrow and contextual? You floggers are always talking about "context." What you mean when you say there's no "context" is that it's not YOUR context. And history seems more jeopardized by "narrowing" than by leaving it as is.

    So there won't be an apology for Lee's presidency of the university, huh? Perhaps you didn't notice, but the committee's objection to Lee was not his presidency of the university. Did you happen to catch that? So the refusal to apologize for Lee's presidency means exactly ZILCH. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

    History, real history, is preserved and now highlighted? NOW? Real history was never unpreserved, never unhighlighted. That is just more crap.

    1. No, they weren't real in that they were not actual flags. They were reproductions. Let's keep the arguments of semantics to a minimal since it is a moot point to begin with.

      Right, replica vs historical flags. Crap, indeed.....


      No, we mean historical context. Narrow context means context specific. With the flags in a place of interpretation that limits said interpretation to a specific set of dates, there is little room to claim anti-integration activism.

      It means quite a great deal actually. You just don't like to admit it because it does not fit within the paradigm of your agenda.

      Yep. It is. Sorry you disagree. No go back behind your firewall and rant on.

  5. Rob. They were real flags. They were actual flags. If had touched them, I would have felt REAL FABRIC between my fingers, get it? That they were replicas did not make them imaginary. They. Were. Real.

    I will keep addressing semantics as long as you floggers keep misusing semantics.

    Flogger criticism and arguments about the replicas are indeed crap. If it is such a big deal, why didn't you floggers bring it up long before now? Why wait for some wanna-be civil rights activists to bring it up?

    There were flags hanging in the alcove for over seventy years and it "didn't mean a great deal" (in the sense you mean it) until The Committee's spite activism.

    You need to rein in your arrogance. That, far more than your position on issues, is what gets your comments disallowed at my blog.

  6. I'm stickin a fork in this thread !

  7. I'm interested in why you chose to close the thread without allowing my response through. Sort of unfair really since I wrote before you closed the thread. Got to let Connie have her say I guess.

    1. I shut it down because it was getting waaaaay off course.
      If ya don't like the way I do things, you know your options.