Quartermaster James

Ooh! Very nice! I'll see your sugar tikis and raise you: Mexican Sugar Skulls

Take care for what you wish. I post this reservedly. Use the following link at your own peril: Sugarcraft

Ahoy all! What light can you shed for me on flintlock guns of the F.I.E. label? I find a lot of information on their semi-autos and revolvers, but not so much on their flinters.

The only production version I have seen is the CAS Iberia/Hanwei item (as in PoD's provided links). It is fun, I'll give it that. Not actually having owned one myself, I can't speak to its sturdiness.

This picture, lifted from eBay, is of a limited edition stein released by Gerz in 1992. It is a reproduction of an actual stein from 1685. In addition to Townsend, Smoke & Fire also has some period pieces at which you may want to look. Be sure to check out both the Pottery section and the Salt Glazed Stoneware section. You might also find this potter's site helpful: Julia Smith.

Lady Washington Banned From California by Hawkyns I just thought it funny, the way it read on the splashpage...

In all honesty, I disagree. In all honesty, I am very glad to have an actual example with which to work. In all honesty, if that thread is an "extreme example" then I am not concerned with anybody having taken offense. Far from a pack of wolves on a wounded deer, I first see four positive and constructive posts before one person voices a harsh critique. This does side track the query, but then Blackjohn tries to steer it back on course. There are a few humorously snarky comments following that, but if this is the sort of thing that scares people away then perhaps pyracy is not their calling.

The infamous red shirt debacle in Plunder of October 2006, no doubt... http://pyracy.com/index.php?showtopic=8810

Oh s#+^! So now I'm suddenly sane?

Please clarify: when we are asked "Who wins in a fight", is that one-on-one or crew-against-crew?

Well, for the love of Florida: somebody stop that damn butterfly!

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..."?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reenactor http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reenactor

This might be worthy of being a topic in its own right.

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

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

DELETED - well, I thought I had deleted it before anybody read it, but since Jessi responded to it here it is: That might be a little bit of projecting perhaps? 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. I offer that this distinction is one of semantics, not substance. I would also like to clarify, lest there be further misunderstanding, that I consider these responses conversational; argumentative only in the classical sense that we are discussing differing points of view and that I am not agitated; vivified by lively debate, perhaps. But not agitated.

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. Which really makes me wonder why this thread even exists? If you don't mind, would you please be so kind as to produce examples of "the insulting language, the condescension and the need to put others down" found in Twill. I second this request. Thank you. 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. Well, I sort of have to throw my hands in the air here and wonder if I have just entirely lost the capacity to communicate clearly, cogently, and concisely.

DELETED

Well, if we're talking about getting involved in a land war in Asia, apparently not. This is a hobby. It is indulgence. There's nothing wrong with that.

As was my intent...

Not meaning to skirt the other issues you raise, which I too ponder and consider, but... I like the 200 year out scenario. I often use it to explain why the details are important. For example, say 200 years from now reenactors in the future wanted to play "Cold War Cocktail Party, circa 1950 something." Bell bottoms and fringes, although popular only a couple of decades later just wouldn't be appropriate. Of course my other metaphor involves wearing tie-dyes to a Black & White ball, so it might be considered elitist.

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

Come on now lads! Female and breathing, what more need you ask for? It's not as if the lasses want us all to be Hugh Jackman, or something...

Accepting for the moment, without objection, each and every contingent argument premised in that list, I respond: so? Let's add to that, just for fun, that every discussion and debate over detail that has taken place in Twill has yielded naught but error: that all has been based on bad documentation, bolstered by supposition and patched with poor reasoning. In short, everyone here all along has been wrong. Still I query: so? It's not as though we're sitting here in Twill advocating atrocities, genocide, racism, or the subtle details even of 18th century child pornography. At the worst, we're a bunch of overweight self deluded fanatics of our hobby. My perspective, frankly and for what it is worth (precisely: nothing), is that it is anybody showing any interest in how things may actually have been done that comes under attack. I reiterate my sentiment stated earlier: With all due respect, this appears a thread whose only intent is to disparage reenactors with an interest in authenticity.