Little known fact, my signature is in the same book as Ford's in Grand Rapids.
With Whom Would You Smoke?
- Thread starter huntertrw
- Start date
At the end of the day, nobody really. I've met too many famous people in my life. I've found they are not who I've come to believe they are. For instance, the Mark Twain example. Twain might have been an interesting person but Sam Clemens might have been a real jackass. For example. I never knew the man and I can't tell you for sure. Or I might say General MacArthur, because I have an interest in military history. But come do find out all Doug wants to talk about is boxing, a sport I don't know much about.
But that's a boring answer. It takes the wind out of discussion and ruins fantasy. So Graham Chapman.
But that's a boring answer. It takes the wind out of discussion and ruins fantasy. So Graham Chapman.
My dad's grandpa - just found out within the last year he smoked a pipe. I remember him running the table at 8 ball in my grandpa's basement at the farm in his 80s and how he and my great grandma had white tape on Parcheesi pieces to tell the greens from the blues, and their big old cat, but otherwise not too many memories - he passed when I was 8.
They say don't meet your heroes for a reason.
MacArthur, Patton, and Eisenhower all happily took part in disbanding encampments of WWI vets with bayonets and tear gas. MacArthur was particularly known for disobeying orders throughout his career, wore awards he hadn't earned, and I've talked to more than a few vets who had served near/with him who described him as nothing less than an ass.
My choice above, Chesty Puller, was a medal chasing glory hound who made no small bit of noise about the fact that, despite being the most decorated Marine in history, he did not receive the Medal of Honor.
Mark Twain was a bigot. Bing Crosby has been accused of being an abusive father and a draft dodger. Einstein was a notorious adulterer.
However, all of these men lived very interesting lives and still had stories to tell. It's important not to lionize men, instead, remember that they are indeed just emn. I think if you approach historical figures with the understanding of all men are flawed, you coul still have a fascinating conversation. That doesn't mean a friendship would blossom by any means.
Sparky Anderson would enjoy talking baseball over a couple of bowls.
Definitely Hugh Hefner, but I would bring my own tobacco, and excuse myself out to the pool.
Making people break in his pipes? Unlikely. They would have done so willingly, with pay. Time honored tradition in London and Paris a century or longer ago.
I agree, though, that the conversation might be difficult.
They would have been paid and agreed to do it, but he still would have viewed it as making them do so, and taken some level of amusement from it.
Mark Twain is a strange case. He was born in Missouri not long after the Missouri compromise, but before the Kansas-Nebraska Act could totally take its course. He got stuck in the Confederate military and abandoned his post, heading North.
He was disgusted by wealth, and yet he reveled in it. He accidentally invented stand-up comedy by doing after-dinner chats to groups of extremely wealthy men. As much as he denigrated them, whenever he had money he tried to invest it and would go bust. The only notable exception is when he invented the door to door book selling campaign for Ulysses Grant's memoir, but even then he was doing so to try to help Grant provide for his family since he was dying of cancer. Even in his sweetest moments, he always tasted the bitters first and foremost.
He took big swings at wealthy men in his writing, but his best friend was Henry "Hellhound" Rogers, formerly of Standard Oil (Rockefeller)fame. He also looked down on anyone who was willing to be walked on. It put him in a strange and cynical position, one which encourages comedy, but it does not encourage much belief in humanity. He was brilliant, but cynical. If one were to believe in reincarnation, one might think that he and Flannery O'Connor were the same person.
I don't believe he was a terrible person. But to the point by @crashthegrey if you're not cynical, you would not enjoy conversing with him. But at the same rate, if you're a fan of gallows humor, he'd be a hoot without doubt. Still, he'd do all the talking.
P.S. My answer to the topic question... if it has to be a pipe smoker, I'd smoke a pipe with Andrew Jackson. If I could say any smoker in general, Bruce Lee.
Last edited:
Basil Rathbone, aka Sherlock Holmes and Sir Guy of Gisbourne. Pipe smoker and fencer!
My Grandfather on my Mother's side for sure!
Then Albert Einstein with a large bowl of Revelation!
Then Albert Einstein with a large bowl of Revelation!
J. Robert Oppenheimer would be an interesting choice for me. No serious language problem and he could converse on anyone of a number of topics.
General Sherman. I understand he is generally reviled in the South, but I am not sure he was a bad person. My great great uncle marched with him as a supply lieutenant, and had a very different take on the man.
Rahsaan Roland Kirk. He and I shared a bowl back in the 70s.
Most decorated American under Pershing, a general who didn't think medals were for officers, only for enlisted troops. Controversial? Sure. But, an ass? I doubt it. A brilliant strategist? The proof is out there.
I've provided protection for Popes, Presidents and etc. Never found one of them, away from the masses, in private, to be anything but, friendly and appreciative. A couple might have been aloof but, never rude or condescending.
He's one of the most interesting figures of that era for sure. Whether you see him as good or evil likely is determined by whether you agree with his raw dedication to his mission. He believed in what he did with absolute religious fervor, and if you believed he was in the right, then he was basically a savior. If you believed he was in the wrong, he was essentially the 19th century Hitler. He was ruthless to his enemies, but caring to his friends, as many great generals are/were.
It is the practice of black flag warfare that makes him so divisive, because it was employed within a country rather than a cross enemy boundaries. Stonewall Jackson floated the same idea near the beginning of the war, but Lee would rather have lost than fought with such a purpose. It was this empathy that fueled a movement of historic veneration of Lee in the South.
As a South Carolinian myself, it is a strange fact to acknowledge that the areas Sherman burned are still desolate and destitute. It was ironic as well that he opposed reconstruction once the war was finished, while also not pushing for rebuilding the South either. Once the fighting was done, so was he.
Dear God this thread is losing me.
“Let’s judge people by 2024 standards.”
For heavens sake, let’s not consider them or the circumstances of their era.
“Let’s judge people by 2024 standards.”
For heavens sake, let’s not consider them or the circumstances of their era.