Missouri at 150 - The Civil War

[Truman]

I’m Old School. I don’t do news on the ‘net. And along with the sunrise in the east, I expect the Kansas City Star to be sitting patiently at the end of the drive for me to collect each morning. And yes, like every right-of-center thinking individual all across our republic, I rage daily at the lunacy and idiocy presented me each morning by a rag that purports to be a “Paper for the People,” and is staffed by learned and staid intellectuals (read: asshats) that smugly like to point out that not only are they smarter than you are, their opinions should be seriously considered to shape the direction of How Things Ought To Be.

And they openly wonder why circulation has dropped…

Why, just yesterday, they called for an increase of the tobacco tax in Missouri to “fund state programs”. This periodic harangue is used interchangeably with their call to raise the booze taxes on us working slobs too. Fat chance. We brew too much beer and roll too many cigarettes in this state for this plea to ever grow legs in the General Assembly. But that doesn’t keep them from spilling the ink.

So why bother with the Star? Like I said, I’m old school. There’s something comforting about starting you day with a real live newspaper. Besides, laptops don’t balance so well or fold nearly as conveniently when you’re sitting on the shitter.

But I gotta give props where props are due.

With the sesquicentennial of the Civil War upon us, The Star is about mid-way through a monthly series on the war in these parts – or, as some have been raised to call it, the War of Northern Aggression. Yeah, most of you could give a rat’s ass, and the Get Fucked troll is surely lurking, but there is some great stuff that can be found here for Civil War buffs.



http://civilwar150.kansascity.com

I probably wouldn’t have even bothered with this post if it hadn’t been for the raised-and-lifted, rusted-out F-150 proudly flying a regulation-size rebel battle flag from the end of its left rear quarter panel as it raced up 58 Highway a couple of hours ago, and as I was heading up to the Price Chopper to pick up supper.

“Only in Missouri,” was my first thought.

One of the more amusing passages I read today was the 1860’s circa smack thrown down by a Lt. Colonel Elias Caulkins of the 3rd Wisconsin on Missouri’s “insurgents”:

”Not one in a hundred could write. They are usually of a yellow sandy complexion… and they had uniformly bad teeth. …They were ignorant, uncombed, unwashed.”

Goober couldn’t have posted a better smack on the residents of these parts on his best day. Still, it’s easy to understand the colonel’s bitterness – about a hundred of his countrymen (and most probably a couple of Goober’s grandnephews) are planted in a Confederate cemetery up in Higginsville….

As I’ve posted before: Your folks all went home after the war. Our folks were still here when it ended - and had to learn to live with one another. There’s some good stuff here that might bring you all a bit of perspective as to why this junk still matters some of us born 'n raised in these parts.

Of an interest was the published result of a Pew poll on the major causation of the war: 48% said states rights; 38% said slavery. And the states rights metric soared to well over 60% with the under-30 crowd. Good Lord. 'The hell they teachin' our kids? mvscal and I have gone a round-or-seven on this very topic, but even this result left me speechless…

[mvscal]

Of an interest was the published result of a Pew poll on the major causation of the war: 48% said states rights; 38% said slavery. And the states rights metric soared to well over 60% with the under-30 crowd. Good Lord. 'The hell they teachin' our kids?

Evidently they are teaching your kids lies. A state's right to permit citizens to own other human beings as property was the only state's right that was threatened by the North's increasing demographic ascendency.

No slavery, no war. Period. End of story.

[Screw_Michigan]

And they openly wonder why circulation has dropped…

Because they give away the product for free on the internet. You're a fucking idiot. Way to kick your own ass once again.

[Truman]

Of an interest was the published result of a Pew poll on the major causation of the war: 48% said states rights; 38% said slavery. And the states rights metric soared to well over 60% with the under-30 crowd. Good Lord. 'The hell they teachin' our kids?

Evidently they are teaching your kids lies. A state's right to permit citizens to own other human beings as property was the only state's right that was threatened by the North's increasing demographic ascendency.

No slavery, no war. Period. End of story.

...as well as yours. Try clicking the link, Genius. National poll. Don't shoot the messenger.

FTR, I do not disagree with you on the war's causation, other than the calculus that decided hostilities here.

We're not ever gonna agree on it, and I'll spare you the keystrokes, as well as emptying your smack arsenal. You've already fought and lost two threads on the topic... Why go for the hat trick?

[mvscal]

You have been soundly thrashed on both threads with both actual evidence and logical consistency of which you provided none of the above. While many individual Missourians fought for the Confederacy, the state itself remained in the Union both legally and physically. The constitutional convention which assembled to address the issue rejected it out of hand and there was never any second convention to reconsider. Not an opinion. Just a fact. You can spin and hem and haw till you're Union blue in the face but you can't change the facts.

[Truman]

And they openly wonder why circulation has dropped…

Because they give away the product for free on the internet. You're a fucking idiot. Way to kick your own ass once again.

Lemme get this straight:

Newspapers give away their product and teeter on bankruptcy and I've kicked MY own ass? Really?

:?

Looks like somebody just got slapped in the face with his own mop. You should be racking my patronage to your dying industry. Here's hoping you write better in RL than you read, Screwey...

[Screw_Michigan]

You should be racking my patronage to your dying industry.

My industry, Washington reporting, is doing just fine. Thank you for asking.

[Screw_Michigan]

Newspapers give away their product and teeter on bankruptcy and I've kicked MY own ass? Really?

Nice backpedal, dumbfuck. You insinuated the KC Star is losing circulation because it's staffed by liberals who think they know more than everyone else. To claim otherwise is a lie.

[Truman]

You have been soundly thrashed on both threads with both actual evidence and logical consistency of which you provided none of the above. While many individual Missourians fought for the Confederacy, the state itself remained in the Union both legally and physically. The constitutional convention which assembled to address the issue rejected it out of hand and there was never any second convention to reconsider. Not an opinion. Just a fact. You can spin and hem and haw till you're Union blue in the face but you can't change the facts.

Neither can you.

You've been pounded worse than the '76 Bucs and posted more lies than a Bernie Madoff prospectus. I have posted and linked and posted and linked, but as Ron White once said, "You can't fix stupid." The very next point you win in this argument will be your first. I pity you, because you cling to denial like Lance Armstrong at a steroids inquiry. We've been through every point listed in your take above, and I've buried you deeper than a Mount St. Helens lava flow.

Seriously: Don't you tire of being pulverized into gravel and being exposed on this topic as the fraud you are?

[Truman]

Newspapers give away their product and teeter on bankruptcy and I've kicked MY own ass? Really?

Nice backpedal, dumbfuck. You insinuated the KC Star is losing circulation because it's staffed by liberals who think they know more than everyone else. To claim otherwise is a lie.

Backpedal? Oh, no, Screwey, I agree: The KC Star IS losing circulation because it's staffed by liberals who think they know more than everyone else.

But you'll forgive me for struggling to reconcile how actually giving away a product is a sound business model. Which explains a whole helluva a lot about liberals and business, I suppose....

Perhaps an elightened progressive can explain this concept to me.

You're defending the indefensible, Screwey. What's fun here is that I don't even have to try to make you look stupid... You're doing a fine job all by yourself.

[Goober McTuber]

One of the more amusing passages I read today was the 1860’s circa smack thrown down by a Lt. Colonel Elias Caulkins of the 3rd Wisconsin on Missouri’s “insurgents”:

”Not one in a hundred could write. They are usually of a yellow sandy complexion… and they had uniformly bad teeth. …They were ignorant, uncombed, unwashed.”

Goober couldn’t have posted a better smack on the residents of these parts on his best day.

RACK my great-great-great-great-grandpa Elias.

[BSmack]

But you'll forgive me for struggling to reconcile how actually giving away a product is a sound business model.

The local progressive rag here in Rochester gave up charging for their product 20 years ago. They have thrived ever since as the increased circulation allows them to charge more for their advertising.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Of an interest was the published result of a Pew poll on the major causation of the war: 48% said states rights; 38% said slavery. And the states rights metric soared to well over 60% with the under-30 crowd. Good Lord. 'The hell they teachin' our kids?

Evidently they are teaching your kids lies. A state's right to permit citizens to own other human beings as property was the only state's right that was threatened by the North's increasing demographic ascendency.

No slavery, no war. Period. End of story.

FTR, mvscal and I rarely agree on any topic having even a remotely political connotation. Slavery as the root cause of the Civil War is easily the most prominent exception to that rule.

In fact, I'll go one farther than mvscal: "states' rights" was nothing more than a euphemism for slavery during the first century of this country's existence, and a euphemism for legalized racial segregation (e.g., Jim Crow laws) in the second century of this country's existence. Against that backdrop, it boggles my mind that the states' rights crowd still has any pull whatsoever these days.

[Screw_Michigan]

Against that backdrop, it boggles my mind that the states' rights crowd still has any pull whatsoever these days.

Hating balck people will always have pull in America, Terry.

[Truman]

In fact, I'll go one farther than mvscal: "states' rights" was nothing more than a euphemism for slavery during the first century of this country's existence, and a euphemism for legalized racial segregation (e.g., Jim Crow laws) in the second century of this country's existence. Against that backdrop, it boggles my mind that the states' rights crowd still has any pull whatsoever these days.

Lotta folks agree with you, Ter, including most of the academics and professors interviewed for this series. But if the Pew poll is anywhere near accurate, it looks like these higher education-types have their work cut out for them with today's yout'. Still, I wouldn't be too quick to summarily dismiss the "states rights crowd" as less than significant to today's discussion:

The Civil War ushered in the expansion of U.S. government’s size and power, along with the income tax — begun under Lincoln to fund the war — and fresh grievances of how banks and industrial interests got preference over the little guy.

Across America, in states red and blue, “nullification” movements are springing up against an array of federal rules, especially health care reform.

So-called “tenthers” wield as their sword the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This clause is cited by Confederacy fans upholding the right of states to break away.

It’s not just conservatives claiming the 10th. Californians want to use it to eliminate the federal government’s prohibitions on pot possession. In other states, the gripes are aimed at federal gun laws, FDA rules applied to small dairy producers, or the executive branch using state National Guard troops in an undeclared war on terror.

“It’s taken 150 years to get to the point we’re at now,” says Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center, a California-based advocacy group. “It’ll probably take another 150 years to get back to a limited government that the framers intended.”

Read more: http://civilwar150.kansascity.com/artic ... z1PBTzksAf

[Truman]

RACK my great-great-great-great-grandpa Elias.

I call bullshit. Your great-great-great-great-grandpap was getting the crap kick out of him by the Muzzies in the First Crusade.

[indyfrisco]

I, too, would prefer to be holding the actual newspaper in my hand, however.

Especially true if you run out of toilet paper whilst taking one of your legendary dumps.

[mvscal]

The Civil War ushered in the expansion of U.S. government’s size and power, along with the income tax — begun under Lincoln to fund the war — and fresh grievances of how banks and industrial interests got preference over the little guy.

Garbage article. The Civil War income tax was a temporary measure used to fund the war not a permanent method of funding the limitless growth of government. It was also discontinued in 1872. I would look at 17th amendment, the New Deal and the Great Society as the primary culprits of federal hypertrophy.

[indyfrisco]

VVV Been there, done that VVV

What possessed me to mention that incident?

I don't know, but you are now "that guy" at least round these parts.

[SunCoastSooner]

Misery confederates kicked the shit out of the Union for years until the population disparity in New York, Mass., and Pennsylvania became too much to over come. kind of the epitome of the war in general. The Missouri Guard was the shit. The best militia in American history.

[mvscal]

Misery confederates kicked the shit out of the Union for years until the population disparity in New York, Mass., and Pennsylvania became too much to over come.

Get a clue, you dumb jackass. Missouri confederates got their asses kicked by Missouri federals. There were no New York, Pennsylvania or Massachewshits troops in Missouri.

[Goober McTuber]

RACK my great-great-great-great-grandpa Elias.

I call bullshit. Your great-great-great-great-grandpap was getting the crap kick out of him by the Muzzies in the First Crusade.

Seven generations that span 1,000 years. Nice effort, slappy.

[Terry in Crapchester]

In fact, I'll go one farther than mvscal: "states' rights" was nothing more than a euphemism for slavery during the first century of this country's existence, and a euphemism for legalized racial segregation (e.g., Jim Crow laws) in the second century of this country's existence. Against that backdrop, it boggles my mind that the states' rights crowd still has any pull whatsoever these days.

Lotta folks agree with you, Ter, including most of the academics and professors interviewed for this series. But if the Pew poll is anywhere near accurate, it looks like these higher education-types have their work cut out for them with today's yout'. Still, I wouldn't be too quick to summarily dismiss the "states rights crowd" as less than significant to today's discussion:

Oh, I don't. But I do wonder why that isn't the case.

[SunCoastSooner]

Misery confederates kicked the shit out of the Union for years until the population disparity in New York, Mass., and Pennsylvania became too much to over come.

Get a clue, you dumb jackass. Missouri confederates got their asses kicked by Missouri federals. There were no New York, Pennsylvania or Massachewshits troops in Missouri.

I've always waited for your blowhard lying ass to try and pick on me about me about the Civil War. Guess today was my lucky day to finally kick your teeth in. Someone PM Van, he's been begging me to this for a long time on the CFB board.

Outside Federalist troops outnumbered troops from Missouri who served in Missouri 12 to 1 and that is being conservative in the numbers.

Union Units who served in Missouri during the Civil War that were not Missouri Federalists include but are not limited to:
4th United States Cavalry
1st Iowa Calvalry
1st Illinois Cavalry
16th Illinois Infantry
39th Ohio Infantry
3rd Iowa Infantry
1st Kansas Infantry
2nd Kansas Infantry
23rd Illinois Infantry
17th Illinois Infantry
20th Illinois Infantry
7th Iowa Infantry
27th Illinois Infantry
30th Illinois Infantry
31st Illinois Infantry

As far as your little quip about, what was it . . . "Missouri Confederates got the shit kicked out of them by Missouri Federalists." Are you dumb or brain dead? Missouri remained virtually controlled by pro Confederate military units until October of 1864. Missouri held out longer than Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas even were able to! The only areas the Federalists were even able to exhort any authority up until then were in Kansas City and Springfield. The Federalists were only able to muster victories in small scale skirmishes up until October of 1864 as well. Up until then the vast majority of major encounters were decidedly Pro confederate victories:

Battle of Carthage where a bunch of Arkansas and pro-confederate Missouri Militia wiped the field with the Union 2nd Infantry and if not for a rear guard action and the quick retreat over thirty miles in one night while losing its supply train towards Kansas it would have been completely destroyed.

Battle of Wilson's Creek where, once again, a bunch of Confederate militia from Arkansas and Missouri wiped the field with the Union "Army of the West". At dawn Missouri militia feinted entrenching at the top of a low lying ridge overlooked by a hill and invited a Union attack. When the idiot commanding officers of "The Western Army" obliged the Missouri militia fell back allowing the Pulaski Artillery regiment to open fire from above. The Arkansas Militia and Missouri State Guard counter attacked in a pincer movement... By 9:30am 1/4 of "The Western Army" had been killed or mortally wounded.

The Battle of Independence where Confederate Soldiers not only took the Union to task but took control of their camp leaving the field with virtually all of the Union's supplies and ammunition. The Union lost 344 soldiers that afternoon . . . the Confederacy lost 16.

Missouri and Arkansas Militia ran the Federalists ragged for more than three years and the majority of the war in Missouri. The Federalists had to retreat on forced marches back towards Kansas no fewer than three times until late 1864 and when attacking from the East toward Kentucky twice. Federalists were not able to garner control of Missouri (excluding Kansas City and Springfield) until they so vastly outnumbered the confederate forces that it was impossible for pro confederate armies to out flank the Federalists while keeping continuity in the battle formations and even then sizable numbers of The Missouri State Guard refused to surrender and instead marched south through Oklahoma and Texas to exile in Mexico.

You may be pretty good at the cause and effect of the civil war in arguments but I think you should keep your mouth shut about actual engagements and controlled territory, especially in Missouri, because you obviously don't know dick!

[Goober McTuber]

I have a feeling this will not end pretty.

Of course not. It's a fucking war.

[mvscal]

Union Units who served in Missouri during the Civil War that were not Missouri Federalists include but are not limited to:
4th United States Cavalry
1st Iowa Calvalry
1st Illinois Cavalry
16th Illinois Infantry
39th Ohio Infantry
3rd Iowa Infantry
1st Kansas Infantry
2nd Kansas Infantry
23rd Illinois Infantry
17th Illinois Infantry
20th Illinois Infantry
7th Iowa Infantry
27th Illinois Infantry
30th Illinois Infantry
31st Illinois Infantry

Noticeably absent from the list was any unit from New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts, so you have already kicked your own ass there.

Now you have listed 12 regiments of infantry and 3 of cavalry. That would be about 12,000 max and probably quite a bit less. Roughly 100,000 Missourians served in the Union armies, so your claim that outside federal troops outnumbered Missouri federals 12 to 1 is almost precisely assbackwards.

Are you dumb or brain dead? Missouri remained virtually controlled by pro Confederate military units until October of 1864.

Categorically false. Missouri was at no time virtually or actually controlled by Confederate units or even pro-confederate guerillas.

Missouri held out longer than Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas even were able to!

Held out from what? Missouri was a Union state, dumbfuck.

The only areas the Federalists were even able to exhort any authority up until then were in Kansas City and Springfield.

Again, you are assbackwards. Union authority was weakest and confederate guerilla activity was strongest in western and, especially, southwestern Missouri. St. Louis was as rock solid for union as Boston.

Up until then the vast majority of major encounters were decidedly Pro confederate victories:

The only major encounters that had any strategic or even operational significance were Pea Ridge and Westport and both of those were decisive Union victories.

Battle of Carthage where a bunch of Arkansas and pro-confederate Missouri Militia wiped the field with the Union 2nd Infantry and if not for a rear guard action and the quick retreat over thirty miles in one night while losing its supply train towards Kansas it would have been completely destroyed.

Well it wasn't completely destroyed and so what if it had been? What did this small skirmish accomplish?

Battle of Wilson's Creek where, once again, a bunch of Confederate militia from Arkansas and Missouri wiped the field with the Union "Army of the West".

More bullshit. The fighting itself was indecisive. All three Confederate attacks were repulsed as was Lyon's foolish attempt to divide his heavily outnumbered forces to encircle the Confederates. Running low on ammo and outnumbered, Lyon's second in command succesfully withdrew to Springfield. Price was unable mount any kind of pursuit. After a brief romp into the Missouri valley during September, he fell back to SW Missouri in October.

October of 1861 was decisive. Union victories in the skirmishes at Fredericktown and First Springfield locked down Federal control of southeast Missouri and southwest Missouri respectively. Price and his state guard were forced into northwest Arkansas were they were stomped flat at Pea Ridge in March of 1862.

That was the ball game right there. Union forces controlled every single major city in the state by the end of 1861. There was a great deal of guerilla fighting particularly in the southwest but, in the end, it was just killing and never changed the big picture in the state. Price came back a couple years later in 1864 and met with complete and unmitigated disaster.

I think you should keep your mouth shut about actual engagements and controlled territory, especially in Missouri, because you obviously don't know dick!

I think you should keep talking because you are a very comical dumbfuck. I laughed out loud when I read your post.

[Bizzarofelice]

150 years later the state of MO still controls the st louis police. not city control, state control.

150 years ago it was because the south sympathizing governor didn't want more guns in union hands. now its because the city can't be trusted to not raid the police pension fund.

[War Wagon]

150 years later the state of MO still controls the st louis police. not city control, state control.

same with the KC police force, folks in these parts have been bitching about it for years.

[Bizzarofelice]

150 years later the state of MO still controls the st louis police. not city control, state control.

same with the KC police force, folks in these parts have been bitching about it for years.

now that the economy is fuct, city cops are cuddling up to the state. they feel the inbred pig fuckers who run the state will treat them better than the hood rats who run the city.

[War Wagon]

I’m Old School. I don’t do news on the ‘net. And along with the sunrise in the east, I expect the Kansas City Star to be sitting patiently at the end of the drive for me to collect each morning.

Yep, I've subscribed for almost 30 years. My parents subscribed before that when there were a morning and afternoon edition, the Times being the early edition. I delivered both off the back off a paper truck for several years as a kid. Used to drag my ass outta' bed every morning about 4:00 am to run that route and then rush home from school in the afternoon to do it again. 7 days a week, 365 days a years, in some of the worst weather. I know where I learned my work ethic.

And yes, like every right-of-center thinking individual all across our republic, I rage daily at the lunacy and idiocy presented me each morning by a rag that purports to be a “Paper for the People,” and is staffed by learned and staid intellectuals (read: asshats) that smugly like to point out that not only are they smarter than you are, their opinions should be seriously considered to shape the direction of How Things Ought To Be.

Yes, reading the opinion section is a daily exercise in trying to keep my blood pressure down. The letters section is the worst. Who are these people who write in shit like that? I've never met them. I think the editors make half up and try to present it as reader opinion. I'd write but know my opinions would never make it past their uber liberal screeners.

Why, just yesterday, they called for an increase of the tobacco tax in Missouri to “fund state programs”

If I ever see Yael T. Albouhalfkel (or whatever the fuck his name is) I will fight him.

So why bother with the Star? Like I said, I’m old school. There’s something comforting about starting you day with a real live newspaper. Besides, laptops don’t balance so well or fold nearly as conveniently when you’re sitting on the shitter.

You will pry a newspaper out of my cold, dead fingers. Not a laptop.

[Dinsdale]

The letters section is the worst. Who are these people who write in shit like that? I've never met them. I think the editors make half up and try to present it as reader opinion. I'd write but know my opinions would never make it past their uber liberal screeners.

I can cure you -- just read some letters to the Oregonian. I kind of try to make a game out of it, and try to find ones that don't contain the phrases "we need to increase public funding to...," and "because of the Repugnicants..."

It's usually much more challenging than the crossword.

[Dr_Phibes]

the population disparity in New York, Mass., and Pennsylvania became too much to over come

So basically, Confederacy walks into a bar, says 'I'll take everyone in the place' and promptly get the shit beat out of them.

There's a word to describe people like that.

[Truman]

the population disparity in New York, Mass., and Pennsylvania became too much to over come

So basically, Confederacy walks into a bar, says 'I'll take everyone in the place' and promptly get the shit beat out of them.

There's a word to describe people like that.

Canadians?

------------

If we'da wanted your shithole, we'da taken it.

Fuckin' scarity-cat-ass frogs woulda chucked their guns and run for Hudson Bay.

[Truman]

I've always waited for your blowhard lying ass to try and pick on me about me about the Civil War. Guess today was my lucky day to finally kick your teeth in. Someone PM Van, he's been begging me to this for a long time on the CFB board.

You DO realize that you’ve just kicked a pit bull in the face, right, Coastie?



You best dig in deeper than a Petersburg trench if you have any hope of winning this battle…

Oh, and be sure to have your facts – and smack - rolled up into tight little balls….

Even though mvscal has been pounded harder than an Albert Pujols batting tee on the war in Missouri, don’t even think it’s about to stop him from posting his usual ignorant lies or prevent him from moving the goal posts.

Just so you know: Despite his bully and bluster, mvscal couldn’t find his own ass in a bag of buttholes on this topic. And he sure as hell ain’t about to let the truth stand in the way of his own fucked up revision of history.

Need evidence?

This is the same asshat who suggested that:

Missouri never seceded.
Truth: A quorum of the General Assembly ratified the Ordinance of Secession that was signed by the duly elected governor of the state…;

The Missouri star in the Confederate flag was a bone thrown to the state’s divisions that fought on the side of the Confederacy.
Truth: -the-fuck-out-loud. Revisionism at its best. Missouri earned their star by seceding from the Union. That the Fed – and mvscal – refuse to recognize this fact doesn’t change history…;

Missouri Confederates entered the war because of slavery.
Truth: Missouri Confederates entered the war because General Order #11 burned them out of their homes… And because Union General Lyons DECLARED WAR on the state and attacked its militia. To that point, Missouri was content to sit the war out as an armed neutral…;

Missouri battles never amounted to any significance.
Truth: Wilson’s Creek and Westport suggest differently. mvscal will tell you that those battles were merely skirmishes; any thinking person with a half-baked knowledge on the subject will tell you that those "skirmishes" determined the War in the West.

Speaking of Westport: The Feds outnumbered the Rebs 22,000-8,000, yet the Confederates still fought that abortion damn near to a draw. Decisive victory? Horseshit.

Serious question mvscal: Why do you do this?

Everything you post on this topic leaves you run-spread worse than an L-Tard post in an OBL thread.

Third time’s a charm? Sorry Loser, but you’re about to be turbo-clocked. Again.

[Van]

Someone PM Van, he's been begging me to (sic) this for a long time on the CFB board.

:?

I have?

That must have been a typo by SCS. I haven't posted here or on the CFB for quite a long time, and I certainly cannot recall ever encouraging—much less begging—anyone to engage mvscal in a Civil War/Missouri debate.

Carry on, gentlemen.

[War Wagon]

Welcome back Van.

[poptart]

Hey Van.

It's great to see you here.

[Screw_Michigan]

Welcome back, Vannie in New Mexico.

[Terry in Crapchester]

A Van sighting? Coulda knocked me over with a feather.

Welcome back.

[Goober McTuber]

Does Stevie Vai have a new album out?