Hooray!!

I agree freebooter, but Spiral did misquote on post 6 of this thread, and has still failed to give an explanation?

Thank you Richmond.

I am sure your correct.

spiral

ps. Indeed Gav!

Oh give it a rest...

My 2 cents about the whole subject has been expressed before and without quotes from books or generals or otherwise and that is I think it is folly to consider that no Gurkha at any time in any place in any conflict never carried a kukri other than the issued...it can never be proved one way or the other...I think it is safer to say the VAST majority towed the line and there could have been others who didn't for one reason or another....there is no absolute perfection where humans are concerned, no matter how noble ....this old chestnut has been flogged to death....

:eek:

I am talking about a misquote and a misleading quote Freebooter.
You are of course entitled to your opinion about Gurkha Rifleman potentially carrying their own kukri pre-1947, but that is not what the argument is about, all Spiral has to do, is answer why he misquoted! a fair and reasonable request.

Simon,

Disagreements are part of this type of research, we all have them. It's unfortunate when they overwhelm a thread and I think we can all understand why Richmond feels caught in the middle.
Clearly Jonathan realises that and to his credit has appologised to Ricmond.
You should do the same.

When you decided to take this to a separate thread you could (and should) have handled it very differently.
If you wanted to just scan some pages from this 'fabled book', highlight some quotes and draw conclusions that would have been fine and we could have all discussed the evidence as shown. But you continued the personal nature of the disagreement with Jonathan right from the start and to be frank you undermine the credibility or your position when you imply that Berkley's disagreeing with your interptretation was in some way indicative of personal bias and reflected on www.ikrhs.com 'The International Kukri Research and Historical Society' or Jonathan's position as a senior researcher within it.

IKRHS is a 'Mecca' for serious Kukri collectors and whatever points of symantics etc that you may disagree with them about, Berkley and Jonathan's honour and dedication to the serious study of the subject is completely beyond reproach or question.
It was clear to me (in the other thread) that when that sort of fuel was being added to the flame the thread was only going to end one way and I completely agree with Ricks warning and Davids decision to lock it.

As a novice Kukri collector and Brit' I have some experience of Kukri so have my own opinion based on my experience, but as Richmond rightly says, the minutiae of this question rapidly becomes to esoteric for me, so I'd suggest that you correlate your evidence and present it calmly and imperonally on IKRHS where it can be discussed by those whose speciality is Kukri and those who used them.

I'll even happily join in and add my thoughts there, not here. Lets take this out of the oven now and leave it to cool before it gets any more burnt ;)

Best
Gene

This is all too complex for me , and really is none of my business . You two need to settle your differences and that way perhaps we can all benefit from the knowledge you both clearly possess in abundance,
Richmond

Atlantia,
Exactly where at the beginning was it personnel? I asked Spiral in Person because it was his quote, which was used out of context to prove a point, ie something that applied to non Gurkha units up to 1881, when he clearly quotes it as linked to Gurkhas in WW1!

Also on several occasions before I started the new thread Atlantia, I gave Spiral the option to scan and post from Huxford's book on POST 13;
As for Berkley it was in my view biased, hence I edited the post and put in his details and connection to Spiral on IKRHS, if it was not biased why did he not question Spiral about his misleading quotes, and infact one complete misquote?

A forum can only be the Mecca of something, if the information given as fact is correct! Of course a view at one time, may not be a view in the future, more than acceptable.

As for me making an apology to Thinredline, that is between myself and him, cheers Simon

PS if you want to start another independent thread that is fine by me.

Hi Simon,

I think you are missing the point somewhat, that's a shame.
Your personal probelms with Jonathan seem now (from your above comments) to extend to Berkley and 'The International Kukri Research and Historical Society'. I would have to disagree with your opinion and add that my experience of both gentlemen are of people who'se views and research is of an ever expanding and evolving nature and not that of a fixed perspective.
As I said, if you were to present your theories in a separate thread in the appropriate place, with your supporting evidence, in a calm and impersonal way, then I'll happily join in.
Failing that I have nothing more to add beyond what I've already said apart from giving you permission to call me Gene ;) We're all friends here.


Best
Gene

P.S. that's a final word from me here, so don't worry if you reply and I seem to ignore it. I think poor Richmonds thread has suffered enough.

Gentleman (and i use the word loosely). Do i have to close this thread as well? Frankly i don't even care what this argument is about. But it will not be aired on this forum. You can be sure that this is being discussed by the moderation team. My very strong suggestion is that t two of you cut this nonsense out immediately! :mad:

I rather think it has run its course David, but at no time have I insulted or jibbed anyone, merely asked for an explanation, which is not forthcoming.

Really?
 

Thread closed.

Not cool.

Andrew
Vikingsword Staff

Take it somewhere else, Sirupate. I will not ask again.