Why I don't post in TWILL

[RedJessi]

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.

[Quartermaster James]

DELETED - well, I thought I had deleted it before anybody read it, but since Jessi responded to it here it is:

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?

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'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.

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.

[RedJessi]

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.

Edited October 9, 2009 by RedJessi

[Hawkyns]

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.

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

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.

Hawkyns

[blackjohn]

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

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

I find that if you want to discuss English sea farers or pirates or slops that all you really need to do is wade thru all the past topics to find the information you need and most likely that information has been hashed over and over again.

The stuff you write here doesn't go away. Those who have been here a long time have hopefully noticed people's attitudes evolving over time. Those who have just joined us see years worth of conversation condensed down into a few days worth (yeah, I know that's compressing it a bit) of reading. I believe the affect is that attitudes that were expressed years ago, that to me seem like water well under the bridge, might seem like some to be current events.

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

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

[Mission]

Not everyone is cut out to be a reenactor. It's a rough game, and not for the squeamish or sensitive.

That's not entirely true. Not everyone is cut out to be a re-enactor the way you are defining it.

Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted definition for what a reenactor is (at least not at the level of detail in which you have defined the word). While they don't have a definition for reenactor, the Dictionary at Freedictionary (my favorite dictionary website) says this for reenactment:

1. To enact again: reenact a law.

2. To perform again: reenact the first two scenes.

3. To go through a second time

This is so general that you could make a point for what it means on any side. However, the Thesaurus is more enlightening (at least as regards our sport):

1. reenactment - performing a role in an event that occurred at an earlier time; "the reenactment of the battle of Princeton"

- acting, performing, playacting, playing - the performance of a part or role in a drama

Playing, playacting, acting...doesn't exactly conjure the images you're suggesting. In the strictest sense, none of us is completely successful because we can't possibly encompass the attitude, mien and beliefs of people who actually lived through the situations going on 300+ years ago. Not only that, most of us are not re-enacting specific events at all, but just our general representation of the time period (although there are some event exceptions.)

So the question then becomes how do we each fill in the missing details of what being a re-enactor really means? You have presented your definition. And perhaps the groups you re-enact with use a similar definition. This is why I think the decisions for what being a reenactor means need to be set at the individual or group level. Either that or we need an umbrella organization to dictate the definition so...

[RedJessi]

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?

[Hawkyns]

OK, Mission, fair point. I do have definition of reenactor. That does not apply to all. There are other groups that have their own definitions. Let me emphasizeTHIS IS MY OPINION AND THAT OF A BUNCH OF LIKE MINDED INDIVIDUALS, IT IS NOT PUB POLICY

Reenactor- one who is concerned with the history of the past, and wishes to be as accurate as possible.

Recreationist- one who like the general idea of the past, but is willing to make compromises and is less concerned with accuracy

Faire or Festival Patron- someone who likes the various attitudes and some of the garb and fashion, but is more into the fun than the research.

Fantacist- one who takes a basic theme of a period and adds to it out of their own imagination or other fantasy literature.

There is room for all, and all have their place. Not all will get along with each other in the same place.

Hawkyns

[RedJessi]

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.

Edited October 9, 2009 by RedJessi

[Quartermaster James]

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.

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

[Hawkyns]

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

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

Hawkyns

[Quartermaster James]

I was speaking of projection in a psychological sense

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

[RedJessi]

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

BWahaHAha!!

You, sir, are pure and unadulterated eeevvvvviiiiillll!

[blackjohn]

Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted definition for what a reenactor is (at least not at the level of detail in which you have defined the word). While they don't have a definition for reenactor, the Dictionary at Freedictionary (my favorite dictionary website) says this for reenactment:

How long does it take to get a word or a new definition added into the dictionary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reenactment

I believe that is fairly accurate. Though it does use terms some may find questionable.

[Quartermaster James]

OK, Mission, fair point. I do have definition of reenactor. That does not apply to all. There are other groups that have their own definitions. Let me emphasizeTHIS IS MY OPINION AND THAT OF A BUNCH OF LIKE MINDED INDIVIDUALS, IT IS NOT PUB POLICY

Reenactor- one who is concerned with the history of the past, and wishes to be as accurate as possible.

Recreationist- one who like the general idea of the past, but is willing to make compromises and is less concerned with accuracy

Faire or Festival Patron- someone who likes the various attitudes and some of the garb and fashion, but is more into the fun than the research.

Fantacist- one who takes a basic theme of a period and adds to it out of their own imagination or other fantasy literature.

There is room for all, and all have their place. Not all will get along with each other in the same place.

Hawkyns

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

[Mission]

How long does it take to get a word or a new definition added into the dictionary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reenactment

I believe that is fairly accurate. Though it does use terms some may find questionable.

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. ))

[RedJessi]

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!

[Quartermaster James]

How long does it take to get a word or a new definition added into the dictionary?

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reenactor

[blackjohn]

"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.

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.

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

"And by being passionate about her hobby. And because [an example of how people wade through stuff] the stuff you write here doesn't go away."

Sorry if that was confusing.

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.

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?

[blackjohn]

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.

[Quartermaster James]

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.

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..."?

[blackjohn]

Whole wars are fought over such things. (So maybe we should all go out and re-enact one as penance. )

Btw, bag that "teaching the public" stuff. The public wants bread and circuses!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_reenactment

[RedJessi]

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.

[Hawkyns]

Btw, bag that "teaching the public" stuff. The public wants bread and circuses!

Personally, I prefer cider and brothels.

Hawkyns

[Hawkyns]

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*

Very well, actually.

Hawkyns