RedJessi

A butterfly flaps its wings in Nepal and we get a hurricane in Palm Beach.

Uh, actually I live in Melbourne, a couple hours north. :)

-- Hurricane

I will happily attempt to divert the path away from my house toward your own if you wish!

Sterling - I really like that as well! I had never heard it before you used it in the other Twill thread but it makes good sense and keeps things even handed.

What are some of the ways the distinction is made in spoken word?

Bright - thanks for that! I really liked the analogy and all the little quotes

Sounds like an interesting story, if you want to share?

In a rare moment, Mission demurs.

It's kind of a private thing, I guess. Perhaps we can discuss it in between you poking me with a stick to keep me awake at PiP during gate duty on Friday night. (Plus that will give me time to find the article and remember exactly how the instructions went.)

And now I look forward to poking you with a stick even more!

In truth, I believe this perfectly proves that you are honestly trying to understand a different point of view, as normal social function theorizes that if we cannot ascribe our own feelings onto others than we cannot ever understand them. Unfortunately, when we labor under such projections erroneously, we can run into difficulties as well.

Oh s#+^!

So now I'm suddenly sane?

I honestly don't know you well enough AT ALL to make that statement either....

*serious look*

*serious look*

*serious look*

*serious look*

*sage nod*

*serious look*

*serious look*

*serious look*

*serious look*

Really? How would you define the pub is not a community?

It is a hub where some pirate reenactors and some pirate enthusiasts and some pirate aficionados come to trade ideas. It is a community. But it is not the only community. In fact, I'm often surprised by the other pirate communities I find out there. Some of them right under my own nose, geographically speaking.

Yes, but I was referring to the pub, and the impact of such language here for the most part. Sure, that would spill over into other groups as systems overlap, especially at events. And it would certainly have an impact on people who might be interested in joining but have an overwhelmingly negative first experience at such events or on the pub. But as far as the community I was intending to refer to, Pub is it.

Some like to do things one way. Some another. Human nature on the tribal level.

So, are you saying that you think dividing groups is a better solution than trying to find ways to peacefully co-exist or try to cross cultures, so to speak, to expand (knowledge, horizons, membership, understanding, what have you)?

In light of your last questions, let me attempt to clarify.

I came to the discussion with the sentiment (or point of view) that the shorthand used in the community - on both sides of PCness - was potentially damaging and divisive, and even more so since an internet forum subtracts all the metacommunication that informs face-to-face communication.

I still hold that point of view.

Given that, what do you see as your choices?

I am not sure I follow you. Why do I need to make a choice concerning my point of view?

That's a nice definition (of reenactment, not re-enactors, NB.) It's still open to wide variances in interpretation. (But then, all definitions are. Whole wars are fought over such things. (So maybe we should all go out and re-enact one as penance. ))

Between you and me, I sometimes wonder at what sort of good we could do if we put all of this energy into something that would benefit mankind.

You don't see benefit in what we do? Because I actually do.

Check the winkie emoticon. But yeah, sometimes I do wonder. But I'm a wondering kind of guy. Sometimes when wondering I come to the same conclusion you just did. Sometimes I don't.

Oh, emoticons. So open to interpretation!

My interpretation was that it was like saying "natch" at the end of your statement, not an a tongue-in-cheek aside.

Well, in for a penny - in for pound, I suppose, so here goes:

My understanding is that fundamental to projection is unconscious denial. So, my question here is what is it you suggest I am denying? Would my statements appear less to be projecting if instead of saying "X seems..." I wrote "In my opinion, X is..."?

Well, let me start by going back to your original words that prompted me to suggest the matter:

Well, to reiterate: this is the forum for those wishing to discuss "PCness", and this thread started within it seems to be about why people who don't participate here don't like this forum. This thread really seems to be a perfect example of the type of behavior we've all agreed is inappropriate. I don't see how this thread differs from the oft proposed but seldom substantiated scenario of the "stitch nazi" accosting someone with uninvited criticism.

From there, my suggestion that this was a projection came from the fact that the thread is titled "Why I don't post in Twill" and not "Why I don't like Twill". So, you equating them as being synonymous statements made me think that perhaps you were taking your own emotional reaction to the reasons why people were not comfortable posting here and personalizing them (ie, feeling personally attacked via feeling that the hobby you feel passionate about was being attacked), which then caused you project an emotional state (dislike of Twill due to feeling like it was an attack) onto their meaning due to your own dislike of the feeling that the whole thread was already engendering.

In the most classical definition (and please keep in mind, this is not what I am trying to say you absolutely were doing, as I honestly don't know you well enough AT ALL to make such a statement, but I am merely describing why I made the initial query) your dislike of the discussion in general caused you to ascribe a dislike of Twill onto those who initiated the discussion.

Thus, you changed the statement "I don't post because..." into "I don't like Twill because..."

In truth, I believe this perfectly proves that you are honestly trying to understand a different point of view, as normal social function theorizes that if we cannot ascribe our own feelings onto others than we cannot ever understand them. Unfortunately, when we labor under such projections erroneously, we can run into difficulties as well.

That's a nice definition (of reenactment, not re-enactors, NB.) It's still open to wide variances in interpretation. (But then, all definitions are. Whole wars are fought over such things. (So maybe we should all go out and re-enact one as penance. ))

Between you and me, I sometimes wonder at what sort of good we could do if we put all of this energy into something that would benefit mankind.

You don't see benefit in what we do? Because I actually do.

We give the spectators something to do on weekends that is an interesting diversion from the norm at least. That can act as a safety mechanism, operating as a release valve for pent up frustration, allowing for different morays and norms of behavior that allow for people to conform to normal societal constraints the rest of the time. Is that a benefit to ALL mankind? Perhaps not, but you never know how far reaching the effects can be.

A butterfly flaps its wings in Nepal and we get a hurricane in Palm Beach.

Possibly. But, I don't believe there is an overall community. I believe there are many and varied communities. Sometimes and in some places they overlap. Like here, for instance.

Really? How would you define the pub is not a community? And what positives do you see in dividing the groups?

Sorry if that was confusing.

No problem - thank you for clarifying!

Is it safe to equate sentiment with feeling? I would assume so. If you felt a certain way, doesn't it follow that your feelings colored your expectations?

If not, what exactly was the sentiment that changed? That we are not one big happy family?

Sentiment can be accurately equated to at least some degree with a feeling. However you are still assuming that I had expectations - as you state they would be colored by my feelings. In point of fact, I had no real expectations for any outcome - good or bad.

In light of your last questions, let me attempt to clarify.

I came to the discussion with the sentiment (or point of view) that the shorthand used in the community - on both sides of PCness - was potentially damaging and divisive, and even more so since an internet forum subtracts all the metacommunication that informs face-to-face communication.

I still hold that point of view.

I really enjoy Sidney Harris' columns. I once spent a whole day on the beach at Bahia Honda re-enacting something he talked about in one of them. Good stuff.

Sounds like an interesting story, if you want to share?

I thought I had deleted my post before anybody had read it, but since you have responded to it I have restored it.

Thank you!!

In all honesty, I think not. I think the words "see" and "seems" deal clearly with subjective perception and that I am clearly stating a personal perspective. Now, if I tried to foist these observations on you as objective fact, denying my own part in them, then they might rise to the level of projecting.

and then

With all due respect, so was I. But let us not further confuse this forum by introducing a debate about psychology.

Thus, I am confused. As I said, projection does not at all level statements as objective fact. It is nearly the exact opposite. They would appear exactly as you are portraying your words- as personal projective, or blanketed in humor - to remove any threatening connotations that might bring about further inspection and result in damage to the ego. It's a pretty evolved self-defense mechanism, in reality. So, your words that if you "tried to foist these observations on you as objective fact" they would "rise to the level of projecting" is inaccurate in regards to the psychological definition of the mechanism.

Interesting that you say that. My persona is not GAoP, but that of a Border Reiver recruited by Drake and the Earl of Cumberland to serve in Elizabeth's navy. So uh, yeah, the Rough Wooing is sort of part of who I am

And how's that working out so far for you? *lol*

Also, thank you for not resorting to "farbs" and "pollywood pirates" in your response to Mission - proving that it is possible to be factual and accurate without resorting to name calling. Well done!

Either that or we need an umbrella organization to dictate the definition so...

BWahaHAha!!

You, sir, are pure and unadulterated eeevvvvviiiiillll!

Due to a lack of tactfulness on her part. And by being passionate about her hobby. And because...

"Due to a lack of tactfulness on her part" YES! That is what I am trying to point out. AGAIN, I am not implying malicious intent, but attempting to show how exactly such lack of tact is harmful to the community overall. You can be passionate and compassionate at the same time.

Now, what was the "..." alluding to, because I don't think I understand.

So upon starting your journey here you had set a certain level of expectation? And those expectations weren't met?

No, as I said, I came with a particular sentiment. Which has nothing to do with expectation. A sentiment is defined as a singular point of view. It has nothing to do with expectations - which are suppositions at best or assumptions at worst.

Well, if there is 'divisive and hurtful language', which I certainly don't see, it would be generally a result of frustration.

So, you hold to this belief that "farb" and "pollywood" could not possibly be construed to be "divisive and hurtful"?

Someone asks us a question. We answer it based on known fact. They don't like the answer, so repost the question, hoping to get a different answer. We repeat the answer. The questioner gets upset , calls us uptight thread counters and we respond in kind. Or, someone asks us a question couched in terms of "this is what I think, don't you all agree with me". When we respond in the negative, the name calling starts. I have NEVER seen any of the regulars on this forum intentionally insult or put down someone for asking a question.

Yet again, this is not about asking question, answering questions, or the debate of PCness in general. This is not about assuming malicious intent on the part of the speaker. But this is about the manner and language sometimes employed and asking that you at least consider the harm caused therein. Which, sadly, no one seems willing to do.

Also, as I say, to participate in a forum of this type, you nedd a pretty tough hide. Indeed, I think that can be said of reenactors in general. Speaking personally, I don't sugarcoat, stroke egos, or care about being PC. That is not insulting or a putdown, I just state facts. Most of my friends and colleagues are the same. Could this be an issue of people who are more used to the kind of 'nice' conversation more prevalent in some areas of society? I will now state a great heresy, for which I expect to be roundly chastised. Not everyone is cut out to be a reenactor. It's a rough game, and not for the squeamish or sensitive. Yeah, that makes me an elitist bastard who is not inclusive.

You can be right and state facts without being insulting or needing to resort to name calling, can't you? Or is grace and tact the true lost art?

Believe me, I have more than tough hide. Nothing said on this forum has increased my blood pressure, caused me a moment of personal distress or changed my opinion or possible enjoyment of the activities in which I participate and I will continue to do so. But don't you think it is a bit counter productive to say that you want to educate people, keep old ways of life preserved, and honor our history - and then in the same breath say that you have to have a thick skin in order to be a part of it?

Henry VIII's "Rough Wooing" technique is out of place for the GoAP, isn't it?

Quartermaster, I apologize for not being more clear on this matter, but I was speaking of projection in a psychological sense, which does not at all level statements as objective fact. In actuality, projection is often the exact opposite, as the person who is (most often unconsciously) utilizing it is often attempting to remove the threatening nature of any inquiry into the truth. It is fundamental mechanism of self preservation and is also one of the most acute, entrenched and subtle psychological processes.

annnnd, this no longer makes sense since you deleted your post, but I am going to leave it anyway, in case anyone else misunderstood my meaning.

Being Polite

Sidney Harris

I walked with a friend to the newsstand the other night, and he bought a paper, thanking the owner politely. The owner, however, did not even acknowledge it.

"A sullen fellow, isn't he?" I commented as we walked away.

"Oh, he's that way every night," shrugged my friend.

"Then why do you continue being so polite to him?" I asked.

And my friend replied, "Why should I let him determine how I'm going to act?"

Wait a second...given your field of study, you no doubt have read psychology articles and letters back and forth about said article written by researchers in scholarly journals, right? Have you never seen them take shots at each other? Sometimes, direct and very pointed shots? (Sure, it's phrased better, but it's still taking shots at people you disagree with.) Sometimes they spend whole articles tearing apart another scholar's research and/or research methods.

It sort of goes with the territory. While the allegedly scientific- and learning-minded pretend to strive for dispassion, there's always that element of passion hiding in there. In fact, it's sometimes not bothering to hide at all.

True, but I believe there is a difference between refuting someone's research and what basically amounts to name calling.

To answer your question, yes, it does speak to me. Hence my anecdote, the point of which is The Notorious Thread Counter isn't as notorious as people believe.

But, how did she get the reputation of being a "notorious thread counter"?

In my previous example, I don;t believe it is necessarily an error to worry about being criticized from a group of people who have a history of criticizing.

Vintagesailor - I've seen much the same, agreed.

Hawkyns - Again, as I have previously stated, my concern has absolutely nothing with the pursuit of information, with academic debates on topics - even vigorous and argumentative debates - with the desire to recreate or preserve skills and knowledge or anything else of that stripe. It is the divisive and hurtful language that is used towards those who don't pursue to the same degree - which goes both ways. If this were a thread in the other side of the forum about "stitch nazis" (you have no idea how much I cringe every time I type that example. Seriously. I work in a Jewish organization and often have contact with holocaust survivors - that phrase is beyond contempt to me) I would be saying the exact same things - and probably even more stridently since I find the term so deeply offensive. It is the inability to even consider how your language is hurtful - opting instead to take me to task to having the opinion.

And really, at this point I think I am losing all hope at that opinion even being heard.

Lady Bower - I started with pretty much the same sentiment. Good luck.

I think it is sad that I feel apprehensive about wearing new kit to an event because I fear I will be spoken to as if I am an idiot...

I was once at an event with a notorious thread counter. Said notorious thread counter and I were talking, and this is what she said, "you know, people always think I'm going to go over their crap with a fine-toothed comb and be critical of them at events. The truth is, I'm so busy going over my own stuff that I don't have time to be concerned with how anyone else looks at an event, even if I wanted to."

I think people worry too much. Certainly people worry too much about what they believe other people may think.

Perhaps that is true. It is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that I, and the others who have stated they don't feel comfortable posting in Twill are projecting personal insecurities or assuming worst case scenarios with a mistaken belief that events are arenas of critical audience.

Then again, some people have posted here, stating that despite their love of PCness, despite their desire to strive to be as authentic as possible, despite how confident they feel that their portrayal is close as they can get with their current knowledge (which they have no intention of not further refining) and despite the fact that they read these threads to be more informed - they don't post here either. That says something to me. Doesn't it speak to you?

Further, while I appreciate your anecdote, I am not sure it applies - as I stated above, there are critical terms in evidence in Twill. Those terms set a precedent for the possible expectation of criticism.

Well, to reiterate: this is the forum for those wishing to discuss "PCness", and this thread started within it seems to be about why people who don't participate here don't like this forum. This thread really seems to be a perfect example of the type of behavior we've all agreed is inappropriate. I don't see how this thread differs from the oft proposed but seldom substantiated scenario of the "stitch nazi" accosting someone with uninvited criticism.

That might be a little bit of projecting perhaps? I've interpreted this thread as being a discussion for the reasons why people don't post in Twill - as the name implies - not why the don't like Twill. Personally, I think Twill is a great idea in one regard, as it does clearly state it is a more academic discussion which to me implies it is a less appropriate venue for the sorts of tomfoolery that other threads can joyously spiral into. But I also think Twill is divisive.

I don't dislike Twill at all. But I do very consciously stay out of posting here because I don't get the feeling that outsiders are listened to or much appreciated. And I hope that my previous post at least illustrates why and that some people just might give the ideas contained therein the respect of having at least plausibility. I am not trying to change anyone's mind or get anyone to agree. But so far, I don't even feel like anything I've said has even been given a modicum of consideration - but has been, instead, dismissed out of hand.

You see, that sort of perfectly illustrates my point.

Attempting to rope me into into pointing fingers and saying THIS person said THIS on such-and-such date, is perpetuating the problem. It's divisive and it's mean. And yet I am somewhat assured that I will get a chorus of eye rolling about how I won't provide "proof" (in order to be debunked of my scurrilous opinion) - as if it were possible to show hurt feelings. And even if I did, what would the response be? I already tried that. Which is why I will give this one example, though I am not copying and pasting the actual posts, nor am I pointing out the poster's name - this is just in the hope that maybe someone will listen and rethink the attitude they use.

I made a post - not unlike this one - saying that maybe these terms you use are off putting because language is open to interpretation - and here are a few examples of ways your words could be interpreted as hurtful by someone outside your circle, despite having non-malicious intent in your usage. I even correlated how it was in way not dissimilar to how I imagine you feel about the term "stitch Nazi" (the usage of which I personally find beyond deplorable).

The response I got was "Actually, no."

Wha-huh? You can't even spend a moment to think that maybe there is the possibility that something you say might be interpreted negatively?

And that is exactly part of the problem. It is how this language and attitude of superiority make others feel with the terms "pollywood", "farbs" and so forth. And further, it is the unwillingness to even listen, much less give credence, to the idea that it is those attitudes that most hurt the hobby you've all dedicated yourselves to. I think it is sad that I feel apprehensive about wearing new kit to an event because I fear I will be spoken to as if I am an idiot since I don't have a three ring binder proving that the pattern of stripes on the linen I've chosen for my stays is accurate. And it is exactly that type of fear that will keep people away.

If Twill was all about aspiring to understand history, the learn and preserve the skills of the past, or to better arm yourself with knowledge to educate the public, then I doubt this thread would exist.

As such, I have to ask: if that *IS* what it is all about, then why the insulting language, the condescension and the need to put others down?

Annnnd we've come full circle.

As was my intent...

A few pub members were in the video!

Come on, Quartermaster, calm down. We do this for fun, remember?

Calm down? My dear Ransom, whatever gave you the impression I was agitated?

Not for nothing, but I got the exact same impression. Which is ironic, since it is exactly that sort of thing that keeps me from posting in Twill threads.

Annnnd we've come full circle.