Misson

In my case, I disagree with him about rational justification. Almost everything I apply myself seriously to must have a rational justification to make it worth the doing. I was just talking with Blackjohn about something closely related to this via email. Some of the happiest people turn their hobbies into businesses...do what you love and all that. In fact, most intentional hobbies I undertake intertwine multiple threads of need, reason and/or learning.

It seems to me (living right near Ontario) that gas has been near $3-$4 a gallon for quite a long time now, hasn't it? Long before gas hit $2+ a gallon in the states, if I remember correctly. (Which I may not.) I do remember it being above $2 a gallon when it was still $1 here. I think the economy is curious in that its state seems to depend largely on each individual's personal perception of its state resulting in majority actions that create that state. Certainly, the external situation has impact, but I'll bet it's at least 60% perception and 40% other stuff. So when enough people believe the economy is bad or getting bad, they stop spending and it gets bad. If enough people think it's good or getting good, they spend and it's good. In the 90s, we were told by many sources how great the economy was. So it was. In the 00s we have been told how bad it is (and yet people still thought it was pretty good, so we have actually had something of a boom economy since 2003 until recently. Interestingly, many people thought we had a bad economy but figured their situation was different based on the input they were getting.) As often happens before a presidential election, we are being stridently told how horrific the economy is, which enters into the perception equation for many people. So it looks bad. I shall be interested to see how it looks 6-12 months after the new president (whomever that may be). I'll bet you have a whole different feel at that point. Time will tell. If collective consciousness exists, the concept of "the economy," at least in the US, has to be one manifestation of such.

I forget what I was looking into, but I came across a website for a guy who basically believed he was a vampire and hung out with a bunch of other people who believed likewise. I guess it takes all kinds. (If you're going to believe in something wacky, I say skip the ghost, aliens and vamps and go all out and stretch for something really absurd. Like everyone is basically an interconnected different shade of color and we are only the physical representations of that. Or something even weirder. Why not?) I'd say drinking blood would have to be the hard part of that whole belief system, but I do it all the time when I prick my finger for my glucometer. (Yep, I stick it right in my mouth like a five year old kid. Never had an infection in 20+ years of using a glucometer. My internalist's lab assistants just roll their eyes and proffer an alcohol swab.)

You could put fuses in your beard. Two swords would be awful awkward to climb onto ship's decks, move among crowds of your fellows in the limited space on a ship, fight with agility &c. So if you really want to do it, you're going to have to cast aside all practical considerations and go for the Hollywood look. I guess I'd have one on each side (or across the back - if you're going to eschew reality, go all the way!) You know, the person I'd ask if I wanted to do this is Iron Bess. You might pm her.

Wow, sounds like some folks have serious inferiority complexes. Feel a bit...insecure...sir?

To be ultimately kewl, you would have the scabbards across your back and draw the swords simultaneously. Wicked kewl, anime-like. I still say a brace of pistols. If you can carry four or five pistols across your chest, you will definitely get noticed. They don't even have to be the same kind of pistol as pirates stole them off captured ships willy-nilly and likely would have a whole host of different ones. (You could be like Tuco and assemble them from multiple different pistols. Or am I getting too fanboy here?) Ah, what do I know? As a surgeon I don't carry a weapon. Well, not technically...come to think of it, it depends on how good you feel I am at surgery as to whether I carry a weapon, I suppose.

Wouldn't two swords tend to trip you up in battle? They were only for close combat. In fact, I've read several times where a pirate used a spent pistol as a club rather than using a sword at all. What would be the point of a second sword? In case the first one breaks? Perhaps you might have a dagger and a sword. Now pistols are another matter. Since they had to be reloaded every time they were fired, having more than one of them would make sense. I've read accounts of multiple pistols being carried by pirates...maybe you could do that instead? A nice brace of pistols would look cool...

Actually, there is another account by Philip Ashton from...1722 if I remember it rightly...in the same book in reference to Low's pirates. I am only part way into it, but it verifies the point about married men not being forced being a part of Low's pirate's policy. It doesn't state that this is an article, but the fact that it is verified in a different account pretty well puts paid to the idea that it wasn't some sort of rule - unwritten or not. I will quote it more fully when I have read the full account and I have the book handy.

This probably is the wrong thread for this, but I didn't want to start a new one, so I'll just tack it in here and if anyone else finds it interesting the topic can mutate. When we talk of pirate articles, we often refer to articles from he same three pirates: John Phillips, Bartholomew Roberts and Edward Low. The reason there are so few is likely because everyone but the forced men were supposed to sign the articles making it a wonderful document of proof of willful piracy to be used by juries to execute said pirates. So they were probably destroyed when the pirate hunters showed up. It is also likely that many pirates had no formal articles, but that's not of interest here. In fact, I wonder why I brought it up. This discussion is regarding Captain Edward Low's articles, which were originally printed in The Boston News-Letter on August 8, 1723 and later reprinted in the General History. I will here re-re-reproduce them for reference - this from Wiki who re-reproduced them on 25, March 2008 i. The Captain is to have two full Shares; the [quarter] Master is to have one Share and one Half; The Doctor, Mate, Gunner and Boatswain, one Share and one Quarter. II. He that shall be found guilty of taking up any Unlawful Weapon on Board the Privateer or any other prize by us taken, so as to Strike or Abuse one another in any regard, shall suffer what Punishment the Captain and the Majority of the Company shall see fit. III. He that shall be found Guilty of Cowardice in the time of engagements, shall suffer what Punishment the Captain and the Majority of the Company shall think fit. IV. If any Gold, Jewels, Silver, &c. be found on Board of any Prize or Prizes to the value of a Piece of Eight, & the finder do not deliver it to the Quarter Master in the space of 24 hours he shall suffer what Punishment the Captain and the Majority of the Company shall think fit. V. He that is found Guilty of Gaming, or Defrauding one another to the value of a Royal of Plate, shall suffer what Punishment the Captain and the Majority of the Company shall think fit. VI. He that shall have the Misfortune to loose a Limb in time of Engagement, shall have the Sum of Six hundred pieces of Eight, and remain aboard as long as he shall think fit. VII. Good Quarters to be given when Craved. VIII. He that sees a Sail first, shall have the best Pistol or Small Arm aboard of her. IX. He that shall be guilty of Drunkenness in time of Engagement shall suffer what Punishment the Captain and Majority of the Company shall think fit. X. No snapping of Guns in the Hold. S This is all well and good and you've probably seen them before as they appear here. So why bring it up? As I mentioned in another thread, I have lately been reading the book Captured by Pirates edited from period accounts by John Richard Stephens (he has modernised the language). I came across a point in there that I think is rather interesting. In Captain George Roberts' account of his capture by Captain Low's pirates in his book The Four Voyages of Capt. George Roberts...written by himself(1726) he mentions several articles that relate to his capture and disposition - none of which are included in the above list. He specifically mentions four articles not appearing above. Most of these regard discussions Roberts had with a group of men trying to assist him on the sly. I quote from Stephens edited copy of Roberts' account: Unmentioned article 1: "They said they did not much fear my revealing , because the disclosing it would rather be a prejudice to me than an advantage [in regard to being pressed into service], and therefore out of pure respect to me they would tell me; which was thus: 'You must know,' said they, 'that we have an article which we are sworn to which is not to force any married man against his will to serve us." (Stephens, p. 206-7, quoting Roberts) Unmentioned article 2: "In the morning, about five o'clock, I turned out and a little after, one of the three men who spoke to me the morning before came to me, and bid me good-morrow, and asked me very courteously how I did, and told me that they would all three, as before, have come and spoken to me but were afraid the company, especially [Captain of another ship in Low's Fleet John] Russel's friends would think they held a secret correspondence with me, which was against one of their articles, it being punishable by death to hold any secret correspondence with a prisoner..." (Stephens, p. 215, quoting Roberts) Unmentioned article 3: "He also said that he and the other two heartily wished they could go with me in [his sloop when he parted company with the pirates], but that it was impossible to expect it, it being death even to motion it, by another of their articles, which says that if any of the company shall advise or speak anything tending to the separating or breaking of the company, or shall by any means offer or endeavor to desert or quit the company, that person shall be shot to death by the quartermaster's order without sentence of court martial." (Stephens, p. 215, quoting Roberts) Unmentioned article 4: "[Captain Russel:] 'I was on board the sloop but just before I came here, and Frank Spriggs (captain of yet another ship in Low's fleet) was along with me and heard him say that he was fully resolved to go with us and would not go any more in the sloop unless forced; and when he came out of Barbados, he said, his design was to enter himself on board the first pirate that he met with; and will you refuse such a man, contrary to your articles which you all so much profess to follow; and which enjoin you by all means, not repugnant to them, to increase and fill your company? Besides,' continued he, 'he spoke to me the first day that he was resolved to enter with us.'" (Stephens, p. 230, quoting Roberts) Now, this either means that Roberts' account is wrong or Low had articles that were either not stated or not printed in the particular version published by the The Boston News-Letter. (Even when you think you have an accurate record of these things, you can't be sure. Isn't history fun?) One wonders how many ships had articles that were never set in print, but just verbally agreed upon as these appear to have been.

Well, I'm ferocious late to the discussion, but I've now come across two references to the QM having a great deal of power and even the second-in-command position. Both of these come from the book Captured by Pirates edited by John Richard Stephens (the language of which has been modernised). Each is originally from an original period manuscript. The first is from William Snelgrave's book A New Account of Some Parts of Guinea, and the Slave Trade.of 1734, although I am actually quoting the account from Stephen's edition . I'd quote the original, but I don't presently have a copy of it. (Note: this was mentioned above, but never actually put down, so here it shall be. Snelgrave is talking about his slave ship being taken in 1719 by a crew under the command of Captain Thomas Cocklyn. Cocklyn took over the crew marooned by the previous captain, Christopher Moody. To point: "Upon mentioning this, I think it necessary to observe in this place that the captain of a pirate ship is chiefly chosen to fight the vessels they meet with. Besides him, they chose another principle officer whom they call quartermaster, who has the general inspection of all affairs and often controls the captain's orders. This person is also to be the first man in boarding any ship they shall attack [which is what had happened to Snelgrave] or go in the boat on any desperate enterprise. Besides the captain and quartermaster, the pirates had all other officers as is usual on board men-of-war." (Stephen, quoting Snelgrave, p. 131) Curiously, in the same account, Snelgrave outlines an uneasy alliance of sorts between Cocklyn's group and another pirate gang under the command of Howell Davis. Roberts, of course, took over when Davis was killed. Also mentioned is another gang under the command of Oliver LaBouche (whom Snelgrave calls 'LeBouse' which, according to editor Stephens, means "the cow pie".) I don't know where the quartermaster stood in LaBouche's hierarchy. The second is from Captain George Roberts' account of his capture by pirates in his book The Four Voyages of Capt. George Roberts...written by himself (1726). He is captured by Captain John Russel (aka John Lopez) and taken to company commodore Edward Low's ship in the Fall of 1722. Russel wants to force Roberts to join the crew on their upcoming raid, but Low protests because Roberts is married and forcing a married man to turn pirate violates their article about this (which, curiously, is not included in the list of articles that are often cited for Low's crew...more on that elsewhere.) Russel continues to insist that Roberts be made part of the crew, but Low takes a vote of the company who side with him and agree that Roberts should be put back on his vessel after all the items of value are removed. He will be placed there with his mate and two boys at Roberts request. However, this makes Russel mad, so pulls a sneaky trick to put Roberts in the worst possible position using his position as quartermaster for the company and the articles to do so. From Stephen's edited version: "...says Russel to Captain Low, 'The mate of [Robert's] sloop is willing to enter with us as a volunteer.' (This later is shown to be most likely false, but no one protests, so Russel manages to pull it off.] Low made answer and said, 'How must we do in that case? For then the master of the sloop will have nobody to help him, but one boy; for,' says he, 'the little child is no help at all.' Russel said he could not help that. 'But,' said Low, 'we must not take all the hands from the poor man if we design to give him his sloop again,' adding that he thought in reason there could not be less than two boys and the mate. 'Zounds,' says Russel, 'his mate is a lusty young brisk man and has been upon the account before and told me but even now, for' said he, 'I was on board the sloop but just before I came here, and Frank Spriggs (captain of another ship in Low's fleet) was along with me and heard him say that he was fully resolved to go with us and would not go any more in the sloop unless forced; and when he came out of Barbados, he said, his design was to enter himself on board the first pirate that he met with; and will you refuse such a man, contrary to your articles which you all so much profess to follow; and which enjoin you by all means, not repugnant to them, to increase and fill your company? Besides,' continued he, 'he spoke to me the first day that he was resolved to enter with us.' Low replied that to give the man his sloop and no hands with him to assist him, was but putting him to a lingering death, and they had as good almost knock him in the head, as do it. Russel answered, as to that, they might do as they pleased; what he spoke now was for the good of the whole company and agreeable to the articles, and would fain see or hear that man that would oppose him in it. [Vicious mother, isn't he?] He said he was the quartermaster of the whole company, and by the authority of his place, he would enter the mate directly, and had a pistol ready for the man that should oppose him in it. Low said, as for what was the law and custom among them (as what he now pleaded, was) he would neither oppose, nor argue against; but if they thought fit to take a man's mate from him, then they might let him have one of his own men with him. Russel said no, for all [Captain Robert's] sloop's men were already enrolled in their books, and therefore none of them should go in her again. 'Gentlemen,' continued he, 'you must consider I am now arguing, as well for the good of the company, as for the due maintenance and execution of the laws and articles, and as I am the proper officer substituted and entrusted by this company with authority to execute the same, so (as I told you before) I have a pistol and brace of balls ready for anyone who dare oppose me herein,' and turning to me said, 'Master , the company has decreed you your sloop, and you shall have her; you shall have your two boys and that is all. You shall have neither provisions, nor anything else more than as she now is. And I hear there are some of the company design to make a gathering [or items] for you, but that also I forbid by the authority of my place because we are not certain but we may have occasion ourselves for those very things before we get more, and for that reason I prohibit a gathering; and I swear by all that is great and good that if I know anything whatsoever carried or left on board the sloop against my order or without my knowledge, that very instant I will set her on fire, and you in her." (Stephen, quoting Roberts, p. 229-31) While this does not say anywhere that he is second-in-command, it is interesting how much power this position gives him to have his way - he can even stop the commodore and the rest of the crew from being civil to Roberts. The majority of the crew later are shown to disagree with Russel, but no one can get him to change his mind and the majority seems powerless to stop him. So I'd say there are several accounts showing the Quartermaster to be quite powerful. In addition, both are given from outside witnesses to the events who have little to gain from altering such facts.

I don't think you necessarily make other people feel worse; I think you often make yourself feel worse. If I could remember where I saw the reference to the psychological study, I'd cite it. I was recently reading one of Martin Seligman's books, so it was probably there. Basically it found that complaining is more likely to make you depressed than suppressing complaints. What's interesting is that this finding was the opposite of what was expected and thought at the time of said study. (No doubt there is also a contradictory study because that's the way soft sciences seem to go.) However, if a rant is written in such a way that it is funny, I often enjoy those. And if my whining about moderation duties is changing forum behavior, I am being a bad mod. (Thus the irony of the above post. )

Ah, thank you Silkie. Alas, being forum mod, I feel I must read it all in this forum. Or at least scan it. (Does anyone else see what's funny about this post?)

I think that's a splendid idea. That way this thread can go back to being random. OK, Pub Pals, follow me to the WHINE CELLAR Eww...that was a bad enough idea the first time they did it. However, if you must have it, please search the forum and dig up that dreadful old topic rather than starting a new one. I wish I could tell you what it was called, but I was glad to see the back of it. (They've done studies and all complaining does is make you feel worse because it focuses your attention (and thus your conscious experience) on the thing you're complaining about and makes you notice it (and related things) more prominently. Still, to each their own.)

No. But if we were to take it seriously, it would lead to a harangue that would probably pointlessly produce nothing but ill will. You don't usually have much luck changing people's minds in political discussions. Politics is a funny thing. Emory University did a fascinating study where they had people read statements by two presidential candidates and some neutral people (Bush, Kerry and Tom Hanks are mentioned.) The documents contained self-contradicting statements by each of them. From Emory's news release on the study: "Next, partisans were asked to consider the discrepancy, and then to rate the extent to which the person's words and deeds were contradictory. Finally, they were presented with an exculpatory statement that might explain away the apparent contradiction, and asked to reconsider and again rate the extent to which the target's words and deeds were contradictory. Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush. While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability." So the study finds we are wired to support what we want to believe. (That seems intuitively obvious to me, but here's a nice study to support it.) The best thing I've heard on the political brain was in a podcast from a Radio Australia program called All in the Mind that was done on Nov 17, 2007. (That's where I first came across the above study.) You can read the transcript here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stor...007/2089172.htm The most fascinating bit was the method most people use to decide their voting strategy. I'll quote the transcript so as not to get it wrong. According to Drew Westen, a Professor of Psychology at Emory University: "The four biggest predictors of people's voting behaviour are first and foremost their feelings towards the parties and their principles. The second is their gut level feelings about the person who's running, the third is their feelings towards that person's personal attributes like strength and empathy and leadership and every once in a while competence. And then finally, last but quite least is their feelings about the candidate's position on issues. So if you start from that bottom of the hierarchy you're actually not going to do a very good job of winning hearts and minds." Positions run dead last! This is why arguing politics with most people is pointless. However, posting funny pictures of the race sort of puts us all at the same footing - most people can appreciate the humor of such a picture. Most people haven't been able to take politicos seriously since Watergate gave us a tangible reason for not trusting them. (Curiously, such things had been reported and discovered in the past, but they never really took hold until Watergate. This probably has a lot to do with the status quo discontentment which was so readily embraced by the Baby Boom generation.)

Journey to the Center of the Earth is my favorite Verne book (although most of the movies based on it have been sort of disappointing). My second favorite is The Mysterious Island which is curious follow up story to 20,000 Leagues. I am presently reading The Journal of James Yonge, Plymouth Surgeon [1647 - 1721]. I'm getting stale on this stuff, though. I may clear the mental palate with some mindless book next. Someone gave me Serpent in Paradise by Dea Birkett which is about Pitcairn Island. It sounds like fluffy research that might be interesting. I've also been saving the book Baa Baa, Black Sheep by Gregory Boyington for several months for just such an emergency... Or I may just pick up South Pacific by Michener for another re-read. (I so love that book.)

They seem to have a pretty high standard for costuming. Either that or they have an excellent photographer that makes the costuming look good. (Both, I suspect.) That looks like an event for Rogue Mermaid. What would you go as, Patrick?

That has got to be from one of the several QEI biopics that came out in the last decade. Sure, and it's about Mary Queen of Scots.

Yes, it's from Paper Moon. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it - if only so you can watch Tatum O'Neill's fascinating performance.

Ok, this is dull, I'm going to post a quote. I bet you'll have to look it up to figure it out. "Stop standing around here checking on me! I ain't about to leave some poor little child stranded in the middle of nowhere. I got scruples too, ya know. You know what that is, 'scruples'?" "No, I don't know what that is, but if you got them, I sure bet they belong to somebody else."

How long ago was a few years back? When I was firing the cannons (which was great fun and every re-enactor who's interested should have a go at it), the whole upper part of the wee little cannon actually kicked back off the carriage once. Probably no damage would be done even if it did happen to a kid, but... Remember that they wouldn't even allow the hanging rig to be set up because of the potential psychological impact.

I have to agree with Hurricane. You're asking for trouble when you let an under-aged child fire gun or let him fire a cannon. On top of everything else, what do you do if the kid's parents are the sort who doesn't want their kids to handle guns -even toy guns- at all? (Wacky? Sure, to us - but it's not your kid. It takes all kinds of people... ) I'd be astounded if the Fort would allow it in any event. In fact, I'd be amazed if they'd let you share your gun with adult attendees under the best conditions. As someone mentioned, they make all the volunteers go through a whole safety presentation and inspect weapons before every re-enacted conflict. They also insist we only fire weapons during conflicts. Why would they allow someone off the street just merrily handle a weapon when those who own the weapons have to go through all those hoops? Whether harm is likely or not, there's a huge potential liability for the fort to consider that would damage them, this event and all future re-enactment events there. (And probably elsewhere. That's how tort law works.) All it would take is one person to do something stupid with your gun and the fort winds up in court and PiP probably ends. We'd be better to give kids certificates, photos, little toys or something like that. If you want to give folks a treat with the black powder, share your guns with folks at home where you're not putting the park and the state of Florida at risk. Dumb? Sure. (God love the almighty lawyer. )

That's slime. Everyone KNOWS that velociraptors were slimy. It's in the encyclopedia...or something.

My pet.

I think that's a great idea. We could do it by the stage in the fort. We could also cross promote the games they have going on for the kids at the same time.

Yah, that's pretty much my impression too. I still support Captain Jim just because I'm pretty sure he won't want the job. I know those of you who haven't been to PiP probably don't know him, but Jim is a heckuva nice guy who gives good suggestions, is free with his tools and has lots of good ideas. Plus he has a noble brow. Actually, when I first got to PiP -days before the event started- Tony Callahan (photographer extraordinaire) was showing me a series of beautiful posters he had made from photos of the previous year's event. The posters were to be posted around town the next day. He paused at some of them to explain them to me. When he reached Captain Jim's poster, he said, "This guy doesn't take a bad picture." I can see Patrick's point about assuming roles, though. Being the sort of person I choose to be, I looked for a position to define my role at the event, one that seemed (to me) to go along with my decided inclinations. It gave me incentive to show up and work with a group of people I'd never (really) met and do something I'd never otherwise consider doing - not to mention providing an important safety valve for all my spare cash - lest I accumulate too much, there's always a trephine or lancet that wants buying. (In fact, you could argue I take it to absurd lengths and I'd agree with you. Why else would I decide to spend a year researching a topic to the point that all the info must ultimately culminate in a book that fewer than dozen people will actually want to read? ) Not everyone may be so inclined. Being who he is, Patrick goes further than most to play an able seaman. Oddly, I expect Patrick knows more about various roles on the ship than most people, including me and could certainly tie better knots. (Everyone must meet Patrick or their pirate re-enacting life is tragically incomplete. IMHO.) So I can agree with him that everyone does not necessarily need a role. A ship needed lots of able seamen and pirates needed more than most for their attacks. Where a merchant would have the bare minimum number of seaman needed to sail the ship, the pirates needed scores of men to take them. And so on and so forth. If I had a vote, I'd vote for Captain Jim since I'm pretty certain William doesn't want it. Neither does Captain Jim, but we might be able to force him into it. Captain Jim, Impress'd Captain :