rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Courage Under Fire !
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Yes, it is based on the film, but I ask you to ignore this fact, as that is not my point, therefore, not belonging in one of the other site forums.

If you watch this film, you will see that the same situation can be described in different ways by those who were there, and their own reasons for saying so.

In that context, think of Isandlwana and those who survived.

Not only that, but those out-with the battlefield, and how it could affect them.

Coll
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Coll

Not sure of your point here. (Probably getting too late for me!) Watch what film? "Out-with" ???

P.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
peterw


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 865
Location: UK
Reply with quote
Peter

This is the film Coll mentioned:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115956/synopsis?ref_=tt_stry_pl

The gist is that survivors of a helicopter crash lied when they were rescued to hide the truth of what happened while they were on the ground. The lies are exposed in the end.

Peter
View user's profileSend private message
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Peter E.

Did you even read my post ? Or try to look up the film title, which should have been apparent with the heading ?

Yes, 'out-with' is used up here, why pick up on it and not the subject matter ?

I'm having flashbacks now of the reasons why I stopped posting regularly - topics being killed before they got a chance to live long.

Peter W.

Thanks for the link and summary of the film. Glad you understood my post okay.

The film made me think of what Lt. Henderson said about Durnford during the battle, distancing himself from his commanding officer and deflecting from his own actions.

Pity we didn't have an account of Henderson's facial expressions, mindset or control over his own emotions whilst in the battle, expecting perhaps to imagine him with a cool head and doing everything right.

Coll
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Coll

Yes, I did read your post - more than once, as a result of not understanding it (which you saw I put down to my late night tiredness).

I saw nothing - and still don't - to provide the slightest clue that the film you were referring to was, in fact, reflected in the heading of your post. You mentioned a film in the post itself without naming it (so one would usually think, particularly in this section, of either ZULU or Zulu Dawn) and the heading of the post contained no inverted commas to suggest a title of anything, film or otherwise, and contained an exclamation mark, which I see does not appear in the film's title anyway and which naturally led me to assume this had been inserted to alert us to something important or exciting. So, particularly as the post was about Isandlwana, your heading didn't lead me to the title of a film - I assumed you were referring to the courage under fire of those at Isandlwana. I hardly think this was "ignoring this fact" unless I had somehow come across the name of the film in the past and might therefore have recognised it. However, when your description didn't match ZULU or Zulu Dawn I guessed another film might be involved - so, being intrigued, politely asked.

Equally puzzled, I also asked about an expression you used which I hadn't come across before - again, hardly impolitely, I hope. Without a translation I wouldn't begin to understand the sentence itself. I gather from your further post that it must be local slang or dialect but without a translation I'd still be none the wiser. I didn't "pick up on it and ignore the subject matter" at all; I simply asked about both, the very opposite of "killing" the post. My brevity at that time of night, a few minutes after completing a lengthier post and before logging off, was not, I hope, taken for curtness?

Imagine my surprise, therefore, after a wonderful day's cricket, a great session in the club bar and a tummy full of chocs on Father's Day, to be brought down to earth by your intemperate post. Plus ca change. I'm sorry if I appear a bit dense to you, but that's fine. I'd be less than happy, though, if you still felt I'd been rude, whether deliberately or inadvertently. A pity this post has dwelt at length on the matter but brevity didn't work the first time.

Peter - Thanks from me, too, for the identification of the film.

Back to the thread, which I had no wish to "kill." What lies were told after Isandlwana? Perhaps, but only possibly, by Crealock? Henderson's account fits with what else is known about what he described.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Original post is clear -

What film ? - Courage Under Fire (heading and mention of 'this film')

What point ? - same situation described differently by survivors (in post)

Out-with ? - is just a word I use, in the same way you sometimes use words in the dictionary, not in everyday usage, that some of us have to look up, in the latter case finding that a more common understood word could have sufficed. I've never felt compelled to question your word, I just look it up. Easy.

As for lies told after Isandlwana ? - I never said that, but said different descriptions of the same situation, namely 'stretching' the truth.

This film was as a comparison on a simple point, nothing more detailed.

Topics are 'killed' quickly, when any point(s) tried to be made, are either overlooked, responses opting instead for the pointless parts, which can end up taking the topic off on a grammar lesson, irritating 'bitty' discussions, creating a downright uninteresting subject, not worth adding to, never mind reading.

Anyway, point/comparison made (or not)...depends on one's point of view Rolling Eyes

Coll
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Coll

Thanks for coming back.

Without wanting to prolong a disagreement longer than necessary (we may just have to agree to differ) may I just say:

"What film?" See my 2nd para. I've covered this point.
"What point?" Query in 2nd para requires resolving first.
"Out-with ... a word I use." You still haven't offered a translation to me - I'm still dense, no doubt! - as I have not come across it before. I simply asked the meaning, please, of this word of "yours." Is is Scots, which I imply from your answer? Or from your part of Scotland? I live in Kent. I'll break off here to look it up, as suggested. Just googled, Coll, & found a reference. It begins: "Is there such a word as 'outwith?' " I rest my case. I am not - and was not - trying to pick you up on this, Coll. I have genuinely never heard the expression before, have not the foggiest idea of its meaning (I readily admit I have never been up to date with slang or "buzz words", if that's what it is, local Jock or otherwise) and would still welcome a translation. I have two dictionaries (one Oxford, one Chambers) above my desk, both of which I briefly referred to before my original quick post, without result. If they're not in there, I'm stumped.

"...in the same way you sometime use words in the dictionary, not in everyday usage ..." I'll challenge you there, Coll. I see I have 1712 posts to my name here. Find me a single word I've used in those 1712 posts "not in everyday usage" please. If you find one, I'll allow you the point. Find more and I'll agree again. But you'll have a job. I was once astonished to learn that "impecunious" - used by me once on the forum - was considered by at least one to be in that category. I'd disagree strongly, so that'll give you an idea.

"Question your word." Where have I questioned your word in my brief post? I haven't, Coll.

"Lies told after Isandlwana." Yes, that was Peter's expression, whereas you used a slightly less strong phrase, which I accept completely.

Your penultimate para, in its entirety, doesn't hold water, Coll. Barking up the wrong tree - see my 2nd & 3rd para again. And please re-read my original, very brief(!) post.

Coll, you have somehow read into my post something that simply wasn't there, nor was intended. As a result, you've gone off into a rant in entirely the wrong direction. As I've already said, I'm happy to be considered dense - but are you willing to accept that, with hindsight, your post might just have been rather sloppily put together, so that my interest, although sparked, was not matched by my ability to respond intelligently without first seeking clarification on two points before responding? So I quickly knocked off the briefest of queries and went to bed, never imagining that a couple of days later I'd see such a response.

This could have been such a nice thread!

P.


Last edited by Peter Ewart on Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Peter E.

Yes, it could have been a nice thread, but there is no fault on my part.

My post was a hopeful topic starter, that should have found its own path, without having to explain it further.

It was a comparison rather than an exact point, else we would have been talking more about the film itself and not what it was compared to.

No matter. It is over now.

I'll be getting roses to plant in the garden and have a greenhouse to build.

So, busy, busy with my other hobby.

New topics here are for other members to start....hopefully soon.

Coll
Alan
Site Admin

Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 1415
Location: Wales
Reply with quote
Phew!

Coll,
why don't you start the thread again and we can all forget this one. If you do, I'll delete this one.

If your weather is anything like mine, your roses will wait.

_________________
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Alan

Much appreciated.

However, please delete this one now.

If anybody thought it might make a good thread, then I welcome them to start it again.

Thanks

Coll

PS - I'll build the greenhouse first....for the roses....and myself.... as it'll keep us all out of the rain Wink
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Been watching the goings on in Cardiff on TV since my last post (during a timely break in your awful weather, Alan!) Yes, might be an idea to scrub this and start again.

Still, if Coll sees this before it goes, I'll mention that I've found two more dictionaries in the house, one of them much more up to date, but neither contains "outwith." Also tried the household oracle (Mrs E) without success - which rather makes it final as far as I'm concerned. I've googled around for a bit longer and finally found a site which attempts to explain the term, warning the user that it should not be used outside Scotland if you don't want puzzled looks, and that even in Scotland no overall agreement on its meaning is likely to be reached. I even came across the intriguing term "Scottish English"! Anyway, I now consider myself a lot less dense than I feared!

Apparently, some Scots - but only a minority - use this strange word and it also occasionally appears in the newspapers of the more educated Scots. We're getting somewhere. It would have been a lot easier, Coll, to have politely responded somewhat light-heartedly along the lines of: "Oops, sorry, Peter, it's a particular term some of we Jocks use and I forgot for a moment that it was unknown outside Scotland. It's very difficult to translate but very roughly implies "beyond" or "away from" or "not at" - but not at all in a geographical sense." A little chiding of my ignorance of "Scottish English" (which, if there is such a thing, my father probably used) would not have gone down that badly! I know many Scots very well but had yet to come across the expression. It seems to be an archaic word which reappeared strongly in the 1930s and has surfaced again, although not so strongly, in the last 20 years or so. Now I know.

As for the film, surely it would have been sensible to assume some of us hadn't come across it yet and to link the post heading with the film's title - which you certainly didn't, even though you believe you did. Someone who had heard of the film would, I agree, probably have worked it out.

Didn't expect to spend my Sunday locked in philological combat with North Britain, more with the calculations of Duckworth-Lewis. (Look that one up Coll - probably unknown "inwith" Scotland). Still, no harm done, as I've added to my vocab, even if I'm never likely to use my newly found knowledge.

Phew, indeed!

P.

P.S. Stick it on again, Coll.

PPS. Also a variant of the archaic English "without", methinks?
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Rusteze


Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 56
Location: Hampshire UK
Reply with quote
There are some excellent discussions on this forum, but also some awful tosh. Perhaps Coll could have been clearer about the film he was referring to, but the focus on his use of "outwith" is unwarranted and overdone. I am no Scot and live as far from Scotland as Peter E, but I find the word is quite descriptive of its meaning. As for Googling it - the very first hit you get is Oxford Dictionaries which gives both a clear definition and an example of use that fully reflects the way Coll was using it. It really isn't that obscure or unknown south of the border.

Good result at the cricket though.

Steve

_________________
Rusteze
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Steve

Point well made. My first mistake was to be so carelessly brief in my first post as to allow brevity to be confused with curtness. My second was to have a cursory look at RDVC while waiting for the covers to come off at Sophia Gardens. My third was to ignore the golden rule of this forum, which is never to get entangled in one of Coll’s regular spats.

Given my first mistake of careless brevity, I went to some length in responding to Coll’s unnecessary rant by explaining carefully and politely that I had had no intention at all of “picking him up” or “killing his thread” – quite the opposite in fact. I shouldn’t have taken the bait – we all know these days not to bite when Coll goes off on one of his unpleasant, personalised rants - but it wasn’t pleasant to be accused of something one had never intended.

Instead of accepting at face value the explanation I offered, it was the cue for the second personalised rant, which means a repeat of the same pattern of the last few years, in which toys are thrown out of the pram by the one contributor who has been more responsible than any other for so many members deciding that it simply isn’t worth the candle, resulting in the absence of some damned good people from the forum. The next step is usually “I’m leaving and never coming back and I really mean it this time as I can’t stand the personal attacks I have to suffer.” I was one of the very, very few who voted to allow Coll back into the forum when Alan agreed to put his latest request for re-admission to the vote of members, as I still felt a shred of sympathy at his exclusion from a forum he clearly enjoyed. He returned once more, cap in hand. I have also tried to answer many of his questions as helpfully as possible, often at length. But always one must tip-toe around the underlying problem, treading on egg-shells in case he takes a single, unguarded remark the wrong way and explodes again, personalising everything. It’s water off a duck’s back to most of us these days and we (usually!) just don’t bother to respond but, of course, it’s poor old Alan who gets caught in the middle again, and it shouldn’t be.

Fortunately there are still plenty of good people here who make up a great forum and I have always agreed that many topics started by Coll have developed into very good threads. So I’m sure all will be well again. I have given myself a slap on the wrist for breaking my own rule of not taking the bait.

Incidentally, it may be that I should have come across the Scots expression, but I simply hadn’t, and did try my dictionaries before surfing. My query probably should have been longer than just repeating the word with a question mark. But there you go.

P.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
peterw


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 865
Location: UK
Reply with quote
To use another cricket analogy I call "Stumps."

And I agree - we (England) got out of jail in Cardiff.

Peter
View user's profileSend private message
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Excuse me Peter E.

Are we reading the same topic ? Where did that last post come from ?

What rant ?

All I did was respond to your first, short, almost abrupt sentence involving three points you didn't understand, yet the info was there to be had, or could have been expanded on the next day, without the necessity of your post.

If anything, you are referring to how I was before I left the forum, but not how I am now since I came back.

It is unfair of you to describe me in such a way, when it is I who hasn't done anything, but try to start a topic to get the forum moving again.

If my so-called reputation from my previous self is going to be brought up any time I disagree with or correct someone now, is my participation on the forum worth it on my part ?

See what I mean about topic killed. That's how no-one wants to start any now.

This topic is going to be deleted anyway.

Coll
Courage Under Fire !
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 2  

  
  
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.