SteveMarsdin Posted 30 March , 2015 Share Posted 30 March , 2015 Martin, just for the record, your excellent work on officer casualties got a generous public acknowledgement from Charles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 30 March , 2015 Share Posted 30 March , 2015 Sorry We have no transcripts to offer. Some speakers will be intending to use, or as in Michael's case already have used the material in other published forms. That's a general statement, but certainly in the past some speakers have made it clear that it is not an option where they are concerned. keith Thanks Keith. No harm in asking I guess. Has the GWF ever thought of filming the talks (assuming the Authors/presenters would be happy to be filmed). Posting (edited) clips online might be a way of broadening the reach of the GWF conference and might incidentally boost sales of their own publications. Everyone wins. I seem to recall the Gallipoli Assocaition did this some years back (same location) although I may be imagining it. MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 30 March , 2015 Share Posted 30 March , 2015 I really enjoyed the Conference. All those attending were friendly and many very knowledgeable. The organisation was superb. Tea braks well spaced although I was disappointed at the lack of biscuits. The lunch was good and there was plenty of it. Dinner was splendid and the service prompt and friendly. Well done to all concerned. The speakers were excellent and each had a vastly different approach: Christina's session on Verdun was very educational for someone like myself who has only ever had a passing interest in this major battle. The presentation style was calm, measured and detailed. It is not often that a strategic concept and planning is explained in such detail. Excellent. Gordon Corrigan's views on FM Haig struck a chord with me. Those who have seen one of Major Corrigan's presentations before would have known what to expect and the manner in which it would be presented. An intensely informative presentation. Peter Hart is one of those indidviduals with a particularly flamboyant style of presentation and again those who had seen him before would have known what to expect. His knowledge is expansive, perhaps too expansive, in that he has so much to say that the information just pours forth. On this occasion it was the first time that he given this talk and in parts it showed but I still found the thrust of what he had to say thought provoking. Charles Messenger's subject could have been delivered by a series of graphs, charts and statistics but it was put over, I felt, in a way that made it far easier to understand than mere figures. His delivery style is easy and measured - I have certainly enjoyed and learned from the presentations of his I have had the pleasure to attend. Michael Locicero certainly has a passion for the night operation of 2nd December 1917 on Passchendaele Ridge and for some of the indivuduals involved. I found his session interesting as a background to writing the book but a little more explanation of the events of that night would have been welcome. That said still a very solid and informative presentation. I really enjoyed the day - except for trying to find my hotel when the satnav became confused...had to stop and ask some very nice people in an Aldi store for directions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pighills Posted 30 March , 2015 Share Posted 30 March , 2015 .......................... I think we all knew that this year's Conference was going to be more Haig-centric, for obvious reasons, than previous years but, as a one-off, I think it worked well. It's a tricky balance to have a theme whilst still including something for everyone, from the novice to the expert, as well as selecting a a range of speakers with different styles who will inform, educate and - let's face it - entertain. Congratulations for achieving it. As far as the criticisms levelled against some of the speakers is concerned, I am far more shocked that people on this forum should be so rude as to criticise our guests who have generously given their time and expertise than I was by anything they said in their talks. So much better to have expressed your concerns to the organisers of the event at the time. Paul Hear, hear Paul. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Curragh Posted 30 March , 2015 Share Posted 30 March , 2015 Sorry We have no transcripts to offer. Some speakers will be intending to use, or as in Michael's case already have used the material in other published forms. That's a general statement, but certainly in the past some speakers have made it clear that it is not an option where they are concerned. keith Pete's talk on "New Ways of Killing" was a very brave "flying by the seat of his trousers" run-through of an 8,000 word article which will be included in the next issue of Records - the Journal of the Douglas Haig Fellowship. Other major articles will include "Douglas Haig and the Planning of the Battle of Neuve Chapelle" & "Arthur Blair - the Unknown Staff Officer" together with a number of reviews of recent military history publications. Sales pitch over.... Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seany Posted 30 March , 2015 Share Posted 30 March , 2015 Just an addition to Kate's point - some of our speakers can command significant fees when they attend other events, They come to our event because they have positive feelings for the GWF and stay like many of us at the Premier Inn, not in a four star palace at delegates expense. I would be surprised if even events that pay considerable fees to their speakers would have the nerve to expect to have advance scripts, or would issue briefing notes about their expectations of a speaker. Simply they would be without speakers. Keith I never suggested advance scripts. conferences are moderated everyday of the week whether that be keeping a speaker to time or chairs intervention if conventions of expected behaviour are broken. I have spoken at many health service conferences (re post 193 - if I knew what I was talking about I'd happily present at the forum conference) and many times have been sent in advance the organisers rules for doing so, often about confidentiality but also expected behaviour. moderation can also be a post conference dinner quiet word saying thank you but please tone it down next time. moderation could also come from an evaluation form (I know you don't want/need one, who would analyse, its not that kind of conference etc., I'm just adding for completeness). I never realised they do it for free. that increases my admiration for those I have really enjoyed but still doesn't excuse rudeness in others. re Alan's uncomfortableness with some comments - I'm sorry about that I have huge respect for Alan but I don't believe they are offensive to anyone and certainly not at the level of effectively calling an audience member a fat bast**d, they are an expression of mine, and others, equal uncomfortableness (if such a word exists) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 31 March , 2015 Share Posted 31 March , 2015 Christina, Do you mind if I resurrect my Verdun Centennial thread on the Western Front sector of the Forum ? I would like to use one or two points you raised in your talk as themes for discussion. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts