Mission

Or John Cleese as the Blind Pew? Actually, I think multiple Jack Sparrows at an event are sort of funny. (I wonder if Ted and Terry had this in the back of their mind when they penned the Jack in Davy Jones Locker bit? )

Ok, I have split the umbrella organization posts into their own thread. The umbrella/insurance issue and the authenticity issue are materially different so I believe the umbrella org. topic deserves its own thread. I had to make some judgment calls, so if you see a post in here that you think belongs over there or vice versa, shoot me a pm and I'll move it. "Sorry about the mess."

Quite frankly, I didn't know it was covered by insurance. As I said previously, I don't care a whit. Ya' gotta go somehow or another... (It would be cool to hear someone say, "He was killed by cannon fire." Ok, 'hear' isn't quite the right word, but...) Mission, I generally stay out of topics like this, but this must be addressed. This is the most bone-headed comment I have ever read. Lets try it again with proper name inserted in place of the undefined He... Not amusing in the slightest. Think before you type. I still think it's funny, but based on the responses I apparently have a warped sense of humor. I'm surprised no one has noticed this yet. Still, since you all insist, let me restate it this way (You can all continue give me hell for saying it if you like. I may well deserve it.): Mission was killed by cannon fire in 20xx. And he didn't even have insurance! Note that this is not an endorsement of irresponsible or foolish behavior such as drinking and using weapons or failing to follow safety procedures. But you plays the game, you takes your chances. The only thing that I would feel bad about (well, provided that was possible) is that it would probably lead to misguided legislation.

Ok, at long last, after several unrelated computer issues, I have finished the Surgeons Journal! You can check it out here.

Hawkyns, I'm curious as to why you ascribe the title of "elite" to those who want insurance - as, from my point of view at least - that was a totally separate debate? I am not picking up the crossover of topics you are implying... I kind of wondered about that as well. You seem to be ascribing responsible traits to serious re-enactors and calling the rest of us inaccurate or festival types. I believe my kit and presentation is about as accurate as I can make it at this point and I think the insurance thing is silly. (I believe it's another symptom of the "culture of fear" we've had running rampant in this country in the last ten or twenty years.)

Quite frankly, I didn't know it was covered by insurance. As I said previously, I don't care a whit. Ya' gotta go somehow or another... (It would be cool to hear someone say, "He was killed by cannon fire." Ok, 'hear' isn't quite the right word, but...)

I am guessing you meant to say, "If all you want to do is wander around in pirate garb, then insurance is not an issue" ? That's all I want to do. And fire someone else's cannon if the opportunity presents itself. (Which may put me in the line of fire. Hee hee hee...) I honestly think you guys are vastly overestimating the lawyer's interest in you - even the ambulance chasers. I have dealt with Haunted House insurance for well over a decade and they just don't seem to care about the actors, unless they are CEOs of reasonably-sized companies. In fact, they are more interested in suing the city and the group running the HH. So forming a group makes you a bigger target, in a way.

I sincerely doubt most of us are worth their time, but I guess I choose to live dangerously in that regard.

Meaning re-enactors need insurance at events that require them to have it. It doesn't protect us, it protects the event sponsors. Still not seeing why I should care... I'd rather just skip those events.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may well be), but doesn't insurance usually protect the place having the event against liability? That's how it is with haunted houses. The individual is not protected by the haunted house insurance policies, the location and the city is. I do believe the park protects us by making us temporary employees at PiP, but I'll bet that's more expensive insurance than just protecting the city or state or park or whatever. (Besides, most lawyers aren't after lil' ole' me. I'm not worth their time or expense chits. They want to go after something with deep pockets.)

That's bizarre. I notice awhile back you tried to quote me and you quoted yourself. Strange problem you have there.

What is this fascination with insurance? Is that the only reason to form an umbrella organization? (But then, from my POV, I suppose this doesn't really matter. I'm not interested in joining an umbrella organization, insurance or no. If some events require re-enactors to have organizational insurance, I'll eschew them.) And we're wayyy OT here. Perhaps we need to strip the umbrella org. topics out of the authenticity discussion?

Happy b'day Nathanael! (See, I spelled it right this time!)

I noticed yesterday that there's a fourth poem about medicine in general as well. I'll try to get them up this week for you. BTW, I believe the Diary of Henry Teonge contains poems as well. They would probably be more general in nature.

I am not really following this thread of discussion very well. Is there some concept that an overarching organization must be established? Makes no sense to me. I say relegate this to the event/group level. If some people want an overarching org., great, they can create one, certify pirate re-enactment groups, hold events and do their thing. Why shouldn't they? Some people love belonging to large groups - more power to them. If some events insist on people belonging to crews or crews belonging to the overarching organization, great, they can do that too. (Some events already require re-enactors to be with a registered group, so this isn't new.) So I see no problem with any of that. (We freebooters who want to attend such events will obviously have to make a decision.) But saying everyone must belong to the overarching org. and trying to force existing "open" events (like PiP for example) is once again trying to impose one group's goals on other people. It will drive some people away from the hobby. Is that a good thing?

I don't believe I said it did; if I did so (in all my verbosity ), I was wrong. My suggestion is that the events (and groups) be what they want to be and allow the individuals to decide if they want to be part of them. In fact, that is entirely my point. The events shouldn't have to change to suit the individual. The individual should change if they want to attend an event that is not really suited to their kit or choose events that are appropriate to their level of accuracy, interest, whatever. However, if an event or group is such that it can't attract enough people or attendees or whatever it needs to support itself, then the organizers may need to take that into account as well.

I'm a mediocre freebooter. I don't think 'elite' is a bad term, although I decided to change it to 'leader' in my previous post because it does sound bad. Words are indeed sticky. I think Sterling made a good point that not everyone has the same goals. In fact, deciding that everyone wants to achieve the same goals as you do (being in the leadership of the hobby, for example) is take make an attribution error - you are attributing your goals to others. Are some folks not up to snuff and presenting history inaccurately? In fact, I would argue everyone is doing that no matter how much research they've done. (We can't escape our 'present' mindset without traveling through time and being ensconced in the real thing...and even then, I'd suggest that since we've tasted the future, we're still not 100% accurate. Our present references color everything we do and say but because we're in the middle of it, we don't realize it.) Still, are some better than others? Sure. But calling others to task for not doing what you want (even in the name of accuracy) is to make the attribution error mentioned above. If someone doesn't want what you want and this bothers you, you have a problem. (They don't necessarily have one, though.) This is why events and groups are best tailored to people of different interest levels. (Sorry, broken record, but that seems to me to be the best solution for people whose goals are such that they don't want to accept people whose goals are different.)

I agree with Jessi. Being a re-enactment leader or trying to create the ultimate garb (again, inasmuch as we can determine what that is from our limited resources and perspective...) is not for everyone. So what? Folks should do what they enjoy and in the level and quantity at which they enjoy it - a lot of people regard it as a hobby, not a competition. But it's nice when those who do want to strive to serve as good and helpful examples of what you can do if you want.

I think having an elite group as a model is a good thing, but it has to go hand-in-hand with the comments I made previously (in post #59 on this page.) If you want to be a good model for others (or a leader - which is a good thing) I believe you have to do certain things to to inspire most of them to attempt to follow your example (however you define 'better' - as an elite Hollywood or an elite PC pirate): 1. Be open to other people and their opinions, not dismissive when they don't agree with you. 2. Complement what people do right and recognize that criticism is more likely to make people disregard you than change their behavior and avoid it. 3. Recognize that there is a nice way to make suggestions and use that method. As I mentioned, I think volunteers (and we're basically all volunteers around here) are really only open to suggestions on improvement when they regard you as an expert to be admired and emulated. 4. Be friendly and open in communicating ideas with others (particularly outside of the core "in group.") Good leaders do not hoard information - that's a power play. Most folks turn away that fairly quickly. 5. Accept that you are sometimes wrong and admit as much. (This is something that is really hard to do, but we're all human. Being a 'human' leader (or elite if you like) seems like a contradiction, but it is really the best sort of leader there is. Many leaders have a hard time accepting this.) Of course, some folks prefer hoarding info, excluding others and criticizing. But I don't see how they can really be effective hobby opinion leaders.

{Note: responding to Jessi here without re-quoting everything} Yeah, I would have chalked the in/outgroup generalizations to stereotyping, which seems to me to be just another function of elevating the status of your group (rather artificially). Attribution theory is cool when you can look at it from the outside. Everyone here would probably be absolutely amazed at the silly things we do to justify ourselves and, regarding this discussion, our groups. Attribution behaviors are so predictable they have a list of them in just about every Psych text. What's even cooler is that once you understand things like the fundamental attribution error, you can catch yourself and begin to modify that behavior. Edit: Hmm. I should explain that. Fundamental attribution error is when you decide an example of another person behavior (usually an "outsider") is something of a permanent characteristic. So if you meet a re-enactor at an event and they are picky about PCness, you call them a thread counter and then always (or nearly always) view them through this lens you have imposed upon them. (Basically what Jessi said.)

You like that? I thought it was kind of silly. (Plus it pains me to have to copy poetry. The pain...the pain...) Since it was written in 1617, I think you're safe on any copyright violations. Do give ol' John his due, though. I'll have the one on Sulphur in sometime soon as well. The one on Mercury ought to be the most amusing.

I resemble that remark. Say, you did see this! I didn't figure you for a regular Twill visitor. I followed you all the way up to homogeneity bias. I would think the outgroup would be more varied than the ingroup, but in the wrong way. Unless you're talking about the ingroup's perception of the outgroup? I believe that hits the nail directly on the head. But groups are a natural part of any social function. Curiously, the ingroup is only 'in' if there is consensus (and then it's only in for the individuals who happen to agree with the consensus - either negatively or positively.) 'Period correctness' provides a natural organizing principle for group inclusion at some pirate events. (Although I find this primarily absent at PiP...which is why I think it is one of the greatest events I attend.) Funny you should mention communication. It is ultimately the key to not being perceived as elitist. The more open a group is in communicating and the more accepting they are to people attempting to achieve the standard set by the organizing principle, the less elitist they will appear as far as I can tell.

Cheers! Have a great b'day, Keith! (He, Lily and William were the first fellow crew members I met at PiP in '07. '07...where does the time go?)

“Certaine Plaine Verse for the use of young Surgeons by the Author gathered, In praise of Salt. Salt with the world did beginne, whose end exceedeth time: In it lie hidden secrets rare, which no tongue can divine. Our Saviour his Disciples deere, to salt did oft allude: Who by their blessed voices fill’d the earth with spirituall food. Salt many jewels farre exceedes, salt guideth health and life: Salt Author is of all increase, ‘gainst salt there is no strife. Salt and his force, his place, his time, his power in life and death: His choice, his change, his actions stra admire we may on earth. __ What living creature can want salt, what plant or tree may grow: What metal perfect doth endure if salt it doe foregoe. His severall kindes are infinite, his vertues without number: His quantitie so large in all, if salt it doe forgoe. The aire, the earth, the Ocean deepe, with salt are seasoned so: As wanting it fowle, beast, nor fish, nor man could breath I know, And for one instance doe but note, in bloud what taste you finde: Note urine eke how salt it is, if it digresse not kinde. Yea sweat and spittle though thy be, but excrements indeede, Have store of salt, which thing we find by nature so decreed. The earth produceth salt in all her creatures more and lesse: Yet different each in some degree, experience doth confesse. Both hot and colde, yea moist and dry, is salt in temperament: Yea volatile and fix also observing each intent. Some sowre, some sweet, some sharp is found some bitter eke in taste: __ Yea liquid, solid, corrasive, and purging salt thou hast. All colours strange in salt are seene, true healing therein stands: And poyson strong abound in salt, salt looseth metals bands. The spirit of salt makes liquid Sol, and Luna at thy will: That potable they may be wrought, a worke of worth and skill. By salt are cured many greefes, though hidden and profound, Yet the exceeding use thereof, is certainely unsound. Salt doth preserve the food of men, that travell farre by sea, And seasoneth well our meats at home, which else would soone decay. Of gaine that doth thereby arise, all people have a part: It maketh barren land beare fruit, which cheeres the Plow-mans heart. The Marchant is enricht thereby, and all that fish in lakes: Great store of food is gain’d by salt, all things it savoury makes. In Physicke and Chirurgerie, it hath the greatest part: It doth containe an essence true, which glads the fainting heart. __ It causeth appetite at neede, it quencheth thirst at will: It ceaseth paine of raging gowts, it favors hot doth still. Thereby are bleeding wounds made well, and that without delay: Yea, sordid ulcers it makes sound, and tumours takes away. For meat and medicine there’s not ought, with salt compar’d may be. Wherefore Ile cease to praise a thing above capacitie. God grant we all may seasoned be, with salt devoyd of strife, That while we live we may doe good, and gaine eternall life. (John Woodall, The surgions mate, p. 288-91) There's a poem on Mercury and Sulfer, too. I'll be sure to post them once I get to them for your edification.

Smurfettes? The only status that is important is the skull. (And not that wussy skull with the swoopy swords, either.) All other ststuses are either working toward the skull or having gone past the skull and gone to seed. 4 out of 5 of my IDs are skulls. (I've had to have my post count for this ID reset several times now to remain a skull.) So keep working and you'll be a skull. Then you'll have something. Oh, and: (We need the cool skull and crossed swords emoticon back that Iron Bess used to use all the time for posts like this.)