If this were REALLY the "Wild West..."

since9 · Aug 20, 2014

Dear Megyn Kelly: The "wild west" was NEVER this way for one simple reason: EVERYONE was armed. On the rare occasion someone tried to get away with something, they either surrendered at gunpoint or were sent to meet their maker. If this were indeed the "wild west," it's not that less than 1% of the looters would have gotten away with it. It's that 99% of them never would have tried in the first place, knowing that honest, law-abiding citizens were standing at the ready, protection their property from looting.

"Deterrence is the ultimate value of an armed society. It is indeed the very reason why the Japanese decided against trying to invade mainland USA during World War II: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Isoroku Yamamoto

Link.

OC for ME · Aug 20, 2014

There is video of citizens guarding their business with sport rifles and pistols (in hand) and that business was not looted.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...usiness-owners-scare-away-looters-in-ferguson

http://mrconservative.com/2014/08/4...business-fronts-from-rioting-missouri-blacks/

Yeah, I know, a tattoo joint, but it is their business and they have a right to defend it. It has not been reported that the cops interfered with them and their efforts to defend their business. The cops know lawful use of firearms in MO when they see it. Context is everything.

OC for ME · Aug 20, 2014

Nightmare said:
Faux-quotations are almost always without context unread by the poster.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

Well, someone said it and thus it is quotable and has been "quoted." I certainly did not state it first and it is very quotable, I like the sentiment behind the words.

I would rather subscribe a "false attribution" rather than a "bogus quote."

Prof. Goldstein should know the difference, he is a professor after all.

"I never let my schooling interfere with my education."

OC for ME · Aug 20, 2014

You can cross your arms and stomp your foot but it don't change the definition of

quote verb \ˈkwōt also ˈkōt\

: to repeat (something written or said by another person) exactly

: to write or say the exact words of (someone)

: to write or say a line or short section from (a piece of writing or a speech)

And it certainly don't mean that you'll get your way.

The only thing we know is that it is "quoted" exactly time and again.

carolina guy · Aug 20, 2014

Nightmare said:
Faux-quotations are almost always without context unread by the poster.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

You do realize that this link refers to a single undated email as evidence?

Personally, I find the email factcheck "quotes" not entirely convincing:

Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.

Perhaps if the good professor had emailed something along the lines of:

Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one, that I am aware of, had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today, in my classes or students' work, I will consider that this quote attributed to Yamamoto is bogus until someone can cite when and where.

carolina guy · Aug 20, 2014

Nightmare said:
An assertion of non-existence cannot be sustained without examination of the entire universe of discussion. The same logic applies in our OCDO Rule (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY.

True...quite true. However, the single point of "evidence" provided doesn't directly invalidate the quote -- meaning that without the professor asserting that he has read ALL materials related to Yamamoto, he cannot really claim non-existence either.

Further, the professor states where the quote has been attributed (to the Prange files) and then essentially admits that he is unaware of anyone providing the exact location in Prange files where the quote can be found.

Again, please note that the professor did not conclusively say that it was NOT present in the collection based on his own research. He also did not provide a citation to someone ELSE who had reviewed the entire collection and found no reference to this quote by Yamamoto.

The only conclusive statement the professor gives is that HE never gave that quote -- fair enough, but NOT conclusive invalidation of the quote.

PeterNSteinmetz · Aug 20, 2014

Remember - the burden of proof is on he who assets existence. Thus, without a valid source for the quotation, it should be considered incorrect. I believe, however, it is thought to likely reflect Yamamoto's likely beliefs on the subject, even if he didn't say exactly that. (Though I am not a Yamamoto scholar).

OC for ME · Aug 20, 2014

Also, in some instances, there is no direct translation from Nipponese and Americun.

Anyway, it is "quoted' regularly regardless of the source. It now becomes a matter of proper attribution.

PeterNSteinmetz · Aug 20, 2014

The correct attribution is critical to the level of interest for the reader though. It is potentially much more interesting as a quote by Yamamoto than one by relatively anonymous person in the 1980s, for example. I think finding something similar by Yamamoto would be interesting.

carolina guy · Aug 21, 2014

PeterNSteinmetz said:
Remember - the burden of proof is on he who assets existence. Thus, without a valid source for the quotation, it should be considered incorrect. I believe, however, it is thought to likely reflect Yamamoto's likely beliefs on the subject, even if he didn't say exactly that. (Though I am not a Yamamoto scholar).

In this case, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion that it is incorrect. As OC has correctly noted, it is so generally cited and consistently cited as belonging to Yamamoto, that the general assumption is that it WAS Yamamoto's quote. So, in this case the one denying the citation should be the one demonstrating that it was never said by Yamamoto, or show who was likely the first to say it.

carolina guy · Aug 21, 2014

PeterNSteinmetz said:
The correct attribution is critical to the level of interest for the reader though. It is potentially much more interesting as a quote by Yamamoto than one by relatively anonymous person in the 1980s, for example. I think finding something similar by Yamamoto would be interesting.

Perhaps in academics, but this is general use, so there is a different expectation necessarily. Nobody's life, liberty, property or reputation are at stake, so the formalities are necessarily less stringent, eh?

SFCRetired · Aug 21, 2014

Considering that Admiral Yamamoto was Harvard-educated and thus familiar with the United States of that time, I would not rule out his having made that statement. As has been pointed out, there is no definitive proof that he ever said, or wrote, the comment.

He was one of the very few senior Japanese officers who was exceedingly reluctant to go to war against the United States, but, as a good officer, he carried out the orders he was given. The decision to assassinate him in the air over Bougainville was, perhaps, one of the wisest, if unfortunate, decisions of the war.

Bernymac · Aug 21, 2014

Nightmare said:
Where's the Earth shattering Kaboom?

Marvin the Martian???:lol:

carolina guy · Aug 21, 2014

Nightmare said:
It is not possible to sustain an assertion of non-existence ... Only a record of all Isoroku Yamamoto ever said could demonstrate it "never said by Yamamoto."

So...even with an expert referenced by a single source of refutation provided by you mentioning a likely source of the quote (see prior messages) you stand by your claim of non-existence based upon a lack of definitive proof of existence? Ok... (*shrug*)

PeterNSteinmetz · Aug 21, 2014

Another way to look at this - what evidence is there actually of the quoted statement being made by Yamamoto? As I understand it, there is none, other than the fact that it is often stated on the internet. There are lots of commonly held "truths" on the internet which don't bear critical examination, so that fact itself shouldn't carry much weight. OTOH, a scholar in the area says he is not aware of any actual source for the quote either. This more than outweighs the dubious evidence of an internet rumor, in my opinion.

carolina guy · Aug 21, 2014

PeterNSteinmetz said:
Another way to look at this - what evidence is there actually of the quoted statement being made by Yamamoto? As I understand it, there is none, other than the fact that it is often stated on the internet. There are lots of commonly held "truths" on the internet which don't bear critical examination, so that fact itself shouldn't carry much weight. OTOH, a scholar in the area says he is not aware of any actual source for the quote either. This more than outweighs the dubious evidence of an internet rumor, in my opinion.

Referring to message #8 above...

Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.

The professor mentions that it is attributed to the Prange files, and that attribution likely predates the Internet by decades.

PeterNSteinmetz · Aug 21, 2014

So to provide evidence that the quote was from Yamamoto it will be necessary to go and find a copy of the Prange files and look. Seems the professor here is a bit skeptical it will be found there.

In any case, it doesn't seem likely the Prange files could be a primary source, since that was MacArthur's historian (possible though). Would such a person have spoken with Yamamoto? Likely better to look in primary Japanese sources.

carolina guy · Aug 22, 2014

PeterNSteinmetz said:
So to provide evidence that the quote was from Yamamoto it will be necessary to go and find a copy of the Prange files and look. Seems the professor here is a bit skeptical it will be found there.

In any case, it doesn't seem likely the Prange files could be a primary source, since that was MacArthur's historian (possible though). Would such a person have spoken with Yamamoto? Likely better to look in primary Japanese sources.

Might have been kinda hard to have interviewed him as his plane was shot down in 1943. ;-)

Given that nobody has yet (that I am aware of) provided a source citation for the quote other than Yamamoto, perhaps it may be better to simply cite the quote as:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - commonly attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto

OC for ME · Aug 22, 2014

carolina guy said:
Might have been kinda hard to have interviewed him as his plane was shot down in 1943. ;-)

Given that nobody has yet (that I am aware of) provided a source citation for the quote other than Yamamoto, perhaps it may be better to simply cite the quote as:

Won't work, some folks are persnickety.

since9 · Aug 22, 2014

Ok, let's flip the lid on this beast. You're the one NOT in the know. How do you approach those who are in the know who are approaching you?

If this were REALLY the "Wild West..."

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran