PDA

View Full Version : Manners



tompritchett
07-13-2006, 10:25 PM
Gentlemen:

It appears that I must remind everyone about the rules for this forum. Discussions are to be conducted as if we were gentlemen and ladies sitting down to dinner. No profanity. No name calling. No running people or groups down. Over the past couple of days, I have had to edit multiple posts for violating one of the above rules. If this trend continues, I will stop editting and just starting deleting complete posts, something that I do not want to have to do.

And please, lets stop having these campaigners vs. mainstreamer fights. No one wins and no one will change their minds because of them. Overall the hobby often loses because people get turned off, burned out or just so upset that they leave the hobby.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Thomas H. Pritchett
Moderator

captdougofky
07-13-2006, 11:56 PM
Tom

I don't mind someone not agreeing but the wording is like manners we all have them, lets use them.

Doug Thomas
Lyons Battery
Kentucky

GrumpyDave
07-14-2006, 06:19 AM
http://www.lahacal.org/gentleman/behavior.html

Provost
07-20-2006, 01:04 AM
Unfortunately, the "Forum Guidelines" went with our old software and I can't seem to find them on any of my hard drives. (If anyone has them, please contact me.)

Tom is correct, the basic rules of civility should be followed here. We are guests around Mr. Szabo's dining room table and acting obnoxious is not acceptable.

I will add one caveat to Tom's statement. I have encouraged him to no longer edit posts but to simply delete them. If you can't follow the norms of respectful discussion there is no reason he should give up his free time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

As Provost, I did a lot of "sifting" at first. Then I realized that I was taking time from my family due to someone else's decision to act disrespectfully. I stopped sifting and started deleting, and it was amazing how quickly some folks learned how to clean up their own act. Censor your own posts before you hit the upload button or we will hit the "delete" key.

If you are new here:

What I've just said may sound harsh, but the bottom line is this: we ask you to pay nothing to get in here, you paid nothing to stay here. Bob and I've paid for this forum out of our own pockets for years. We keep the lights on and the doors open because we see the need for this sort of space and it's in our power to keep it going.

To continue the "dining room metaphor", we paid for the house, we paid for the meal. If someone can't keep from flinging food on the walls, why should I take even more time to keep scrubbing them down?

Other forums base their guidelines on other things, on authenticity, on being kewl or hip or whatever; but here the basic principle is respectful debate. If your posts do not live up to that standard, you will have to live with the consequences of your choice.

We appreciate all those of you who use this space as it was intended and hope you will continue to enjoy the time you spend with us.

(Great link, Dave. Thanks!)

Respectfully,

Provost

VaTrooper
08-01-2006, 02:43 PM
Why isnt it a rule here that you have to sign your full name like on the AC? Seems to me that most of the smart asses dont include their name in their post.

ley74
08-01-2006, 11:17 PM
The AC requires it, the OTB knows who we are. No one belongs to the "Farb Forum", as they all seem to be guests.

I agree. Full names should be required. Can we leave the rank stuff off?

VaTrooper
08-01-2006, 11:25 PM
Id say thats a good idea too since some if not most only deserve it in their own eyes. IMHO of course.

flattop32355
08-02-2006, 12:25 AM
...to disagree without being disagreeable is a goal unto itself. One must choose to be nasty; it is rarely a naturally-occuring human trait.

Upon many subjects in our hobby, there can be honest and defensible differences of opinion, up to and including how many "hobbies" constitute the art of CW reenacting. Just because we differ in those opinions does not mean we can't discuss those differences in rational and meaningful terms.

Debate amongst gentlemen and ladies can be enjoyable and mutually beneficial. Let's take advantage of our presence here around the table.

I may not agree with what someone says, and I may even get a bit hot under the collar at how something is said, but a good rule of thumb is that, on a post that sets you off, reread it several times, as well as other posts made by the same individual. Get to know how they present themselves over time. If how you took it is different than how you've consistantly taken other posts from the same person, odds are they didn't mean it as badly as you first reacted to it. Or if it still seems just as rude as you first thought, you might have been right. :)

Then you just reach for the little red "Report Bad Post" triangle in the upper right hand corner of the post, and...

ilfed104
08-02-2006, 12:54 AM
with all the make nice blather going on here. You mods have watered down this forum to the point where it's not very interesting to read anymore. I've pretty much given up on the AC forum as well.

There are some posts here where the originator needs to get a knock on the shins, but there's a little to much censorship going on here.

Just my two cents worth. Loosen up boys and girls.

bob 125th nysvi
08-02-2006, 08:28 PM
being nasty is no substitute for intelligent discussion or even disagreement.

How does a "kncok on the shins" improve the discussion.

I'm all for a little sarcasm and the intelligent use of the barbed response but it doesn't have to get personal.

I'm all for using full names though. It is a way to make people a little less flamey if they can be identified.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

FWL
08-02-2006, 09:18 PM
I'm all for using full names though. It is a way to make people a little less flamey if they can be identified.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

I'm with you Bob names (full names should be required)

tompritchett
08-02-2006, 09:39 PM
Why isnt it a rule here that you have to sign your full name like on the AC?

This issue has repeatedly come up in the past. Basically, the Provost has not required signatures because he has no way to verify that the posted name is valid. In the past we have had trolls sign with names that were obviously false, and, on at least one occassion, we even had a troll use the name of a reenactor that was no longer active on the forum.

Until the Provost decides otherwise, signatures are not a requirement for posting on this forum. However, numerous members here have stated that they tend to ignore unsigned posts. Therefore if one wants to make a point to the largest number of readers, it is highly advisable to sign your posts. Most of us use the signature option found in the User CP.

tompritchett
08-02-2006, 11:04 PM
Respectfully disagree...
with all the make nice blather going on here. You mods have watered down this forum to the point where it's not very interesting to read anymore. I've pretty much given up on the AC forum as well.

There are some posts here where the originator needs to get a knock on the shins, but there's a little to much censorship going on here.

Unfortunately for you, the Provost does not agree with you and he sets the rules.

ilfed104
08-03-2006, 12:35 AM
but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I stand by my opinion, and that's all it is, my opinion.

I agree that all posts should be signed with your proper name. I use a screen name but all, AND I MEAN ALL, my posts are signed with my name. If someone wants to give me heat for my opinions spell my name right. Other than that, you're entitled to your opinion.

Opinions are like... oh, never mind, it would just be censored anyway.

Miss Dixie
08-03-2006, 06:15 AM
Good manners and respect to me is not censorship, I think that good conversation can happen without namecalling and personal attacks, just like there used to be good movies made without nudity and profanity.

Diane Gipson

tompritchett
08-03-2006, 07:14 AM
I know the rules...
but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I stand by my opinion, and that's all it is, my opinion.

I feel that your points need a more respectful response that my prior reply.

One reason for the censorship concerning the personal attacks is that the flame wars that you are desiring only hurt the hobby and this forum rather than help it. Yes, they can be entertaining but they often result in the development of very hard feelings between the participants. In several cases, these wars have progressed to the point that the attacks become even more vicious with emails between the participants. For example, I do not know if you remember the war between Bill Cross and Plankmaker that flared for a couple of years. That situation escalated to the point that a permanent animosity has developed between Plankmaker and his friends versus Bill Cross and his friends. As a result of these hard feelings, Plankmaker no longer posts on this forum. As his posts were extremely informative, this forum has lost a very valuable resource. Frankly no forum is helped by such losses. Nor is the hobby helped when such hard feelings develop between groups. Therefore, regardless of how entertaining flame wars may be, it is my policy to cut them off before they get out of control.

As you stated in your post, this is my opinion but I am sure that Bob, the Provost, and the other moderators all agree.

Sgt_Pepper
08-03-2006, 07:53 AM
with all the make nice blather going on here. You mods have watered down this forum to the point where it's not very interesting to read anymore. I've pretty much given up on the AC forum as well.

There are some posts here where the originator needs to get a knock on the shins, but there's a little to much censorship going on here.

Just my two cents worth. Loosen up boys and girls.

One of the many wonderful things about this country is that you're free to start your own Internet forum and run it however you like.

And who are these "boys and girls" you're talking to? I haven't been taken for a boy in quite a while now.

MStuart
08-03-2006, 07:30 PM
One view from the outside looking in...........The word "censorship" is a lot like "pornography",i.e., very hard to define. On this board, one man's "censorship" may be seen by another as cutting off a burgeoning flame war. Personal attacks and insults, IMHO, have no place here. One can disagree, even vehemently, without resulting to that. I look at it this way...if you can't make your point without insults, attacks, expletives and such, then you don't have much of a point to make. And the "he/she started it" arguement is just plain juvenile. Having been around here for a while, it's my observation that if a post is deleted, there's pretty good reason for it. The moderators are pretty liberal in allowing "stuff" and I'm reasonably certain they take the "delete" responsibilty seriously. I doubt it's done "on a whim", but with the greater good of this board in mind first and foremost, along with common courtesy, etc.

We used to have a set of "rules" with the old innards. Since they're not posted now, I think some folks think they don't apply now.

My 2 cents

Mark

flattop32355
08-04-2006, 08:08 PM
There's a lovely place to go for just such a high: the Off Topic Boys forum. One can flame to their heart's content and receive same.

That's why I rarely go there.

It's also why I don't watch NASCAR in the hope of seeing wrecks, or rodeos and bullfights, hoping to see people gored (I realize some watch these for more legitimate reasons), or Bevis and Butthead, for least-common-denominator humor.

I prefer something of more substance for my time invested. It doesn't always have to be of profound, new enlightenment (note my post on spelling and grammar), but I prefer that it should be acceptable by common social norms.

I don't know that I come here to be entertained, per se, but to socialize with peers and to pick up nuggets of information. Such things bring a smile to my face much more readily than base humor or (contrived) personal conflicts.

I'm fifty-one yrs. old: I don't have an extended time left in this hobby, and I started late (age 48 yrs.), so I prefer to use my time available sitting around the campfire with you folk, discussing whatever subjects come to mind amongst us, rather than spitting fire and brimstone about the folks at the next fire over. I find that to be a much more pleasant experience.

bizzilizzit
08-04-2006, 09:15 PM
I'm fifty-one yrs. old: I don't have an extended time left in this hobby, and I started late (age 48 yrs.).

What do you mean, you don't have much time left in the CW hobby? I hear CIVILIANS live forever...
Elizabeth

flattop32355
08-04-2006, 10:01 PM
What do you mean, you don't have much time left in the CW hobby? I hear CIVILIANS live forever...
Elizabeth

My main point of interest has always been the military aspect. I've given thought to the civilian end at some point, but so far haven't convinced myself that it's something I'd want to do.

Obviously, that opinion could change drastically in the future, and I'm not opposed to the idea. For the present, I plan on toting my rifle musket for as long as I can keep up.

Besides, I've noticed that it takes a great deal more equippage to do civilian than military. I kinda like the idea of packing most of it in and out with minimal effort and load. I've helped civilians pack up, and wondered how they do it.

Eric Tipton
08-04-2006, 10:04 PM
If people didn't disagree with each other, no one would read any of the forums... seriously.

A good debate is fine. Even something with a good emotional pitch can be educational at times. I always abide by the rule that I don't say anything on the forums that I wouldn't say to someone's face.

Requiring actual names in signature blocks, real photos for avatars and screening new registrations for matching IP addresses against known trouble-makers are practical things that can be done here for better accountability. Just my $.02.

Strawfoot
08-04-2006, 10:54 PM
If people didn't disagree with each other, no one would read any of the forums... seriously.

A good debate is fine. Even something with a good emotional pitch can be educational at times. I always abide by the rule that I don't say anything on the forums that I wouldn't say to someone's face.

Requiring actual names in signature blocks, real photos for avatars and screening new registrations for matching IP addresses against known trouble-makers are practical things that can be done here for better accountability. Just my $.02.



Yeah Right... All this coming from a troublemaker who took our knapsacks away.

flattop32355
08-05-2006, 12:54 AM
Yeah Right... All this coming from a troublemaker who took our knapsacks away.

Yes, but he did it very nicely!

hanktrent
08-05-2006, 07:10 AM
Besides, I've noticed that it takes a great deal more equippage to do civilian than military. I kinda like the idea of packing most of it in and out with minimal effort and load. I've helped civilians pack up, and wondered how they do it.

Depends completely on the historic time and place and situation being depicted. Last event I went to as a civilian, we carried everything on our backs for camping, because it was, well, a camping trip. My wife's putting on a civilian event next year at an inn where participants only need to bring what they'd be traveling with, which might be as little as a change of clothes.

Edited to add: I just realized you mean a mainstream civilian impression. Yes, that generally requires the usual wall tent, cot, etc., though some mainstream civilians only reenact during the day and go to a motel at night.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

RJSamp
08-10-2006, 10:33 AM
Depends completely on the historic time and place and situation being depicted. Last event I went to as a civilian, we carried everything on our backs for camping, because it was, well, a camping trip. My wife's putting on a civilian event next year at an inn where participants only need to bring what they'd be traveling with, which might be as little as a change of clothes.

Edited to add: I just realized you mean a mainstream civilian impression. Yes, that generally requires the usual wall tent, cot, etc., though some mainstream civilians only reenact during the day and go to a motel at night.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Why a period camping trip, circa 1856, wouldn't include Horses is beyond me....and it wouldn't be PEC to be sans horses, buggies, et al. I understand the inability to construct period housing and acquire horses and buggies as the driving force behind 'civilian refugee' proximity to battle reenacting....the myriad stories of civilians offering food and water to marching soldiers from their porches or peering out from behind windows at the trudging minions or hiding their horses (or losing them) forgotten in our authentic civilian reenactors research.....

And civilians travelling with as little as a change of clothes and staying over at an inn? That's the equivalent of reenacting a Chuck E Cheese BDay party or Holiday Inn HoliDome pool party reenacted in the year 2150 without an SUV, station wagon, Volvo, car seats et al. These civilians WALKED to the 1850's/60's Inn? No trunk? Valise? Stagecoach? Omnibus? Train? Next you'll tell me there's no stables behind the Inn (or down the street if this is a town or city scenario.... no crib for a bed....and no manger for a birthing bed.

Let's have a 50's sock hop.....I've got the DVD with the music video on it!

Spinster
08-10-2006, 12:04 PM
I've helped civilians pack up, and wondered how they do it.

It all depends on what the particular civilian decides is essential equipment, as well whether the particular venue being depicted left civilians with their livestock, or if it was all seized by the army. Or, in the case of the document that Hank based his camping trip on, whether the original hikers went on foot (they did), or whether folks going up the hill from the road to that Inn carried their valises up (I did--and quite easily, though on a different event than the one referred to)

Pictured below, Sister and I on the road with our chosen necessities, very late in the war. Old, portly, gimpy, and out of shape, but on the road, nonetheless, and pulling our handcart as we went. Folks have noted that we look 'about to cry'. We were--when the image was taken, the temperature was just under 30 degrees, with a wind from the north.

hanktrent
08-10-2006, 12:08 PM
Why a period camping trip, circa 1856, wouldn't include Horses is beyond me....and it wouldn't be PEC to be sans horses, buggies, et al.

Here's what I posted in answer to the same question on the OTB:

Take a look at all the accounts of middle/upper class folks camping in the 1850s in the links (at http://1857hockingtrip.homestead.com/LadiesCamping.html ). Not a one that I can recall had horses after leaving the edge of civilization. Some had boats if they were going island-to-island or on a river, the rest carried everything on their backs.

Only explanation I can think of is that some of the most scenic terrain would be difficult to get animals through. I'm betting that trips in the far west, where it was less wooded, would show more examples of pack animals or riding horses, but I haven't researched that.

Where we're going has a lot of rocky natural steps that it would be difficult to get a pack animal over, so I really wouldn't want to take our pony, and maybe they were thinking the same way.

"Going to Mount Katahdin," in the September 1856 issue of Putnam's Monthly, is a good example of a trip like what we did. They take a two-horse cart only as far as it can go on the road, and then when they enter the woods, carry everything on their backs for the actual 25-mile camping trip. It's at http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fputn%2Fputn0008%2F&tif=00248.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABK9283-0008-83


the myriad stories of civilians offering food and water to marching soldiers from their porches or peering out from behind windows at the trudging minions or hiding their horses (or losing them) forgotten in our authentic civilian reenactors research.....

The Road to Goldsboro had a house for civilians, and when the military portion of the event was cancelled, the civilians obtained another site for themselves--with a house. Next event I'm going to, Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill, we'll have a house. Vets reunion 1888--a house. In fact, it's been a while since I've reenacted as a civilian without a house or cabin, except for the camping trip, and McDowell, where local legend has it the civilians really did hide out in the hollow. Next year so far, I'm planning on an event in Tennessee, with a cabin. And the court event, at the inn. Not to mention I-600 with prison cells. Don't know when I'll be camping again. :)


And civilians travelling with as little as a change of clothes and staying over at an inn?

I said "as little as." Why arbitrarily discourage new civilian reenactors by demanding they purchase unnecessary things? But participants are welcome to bring as much as they want also, up to and including several trunks, which is what most people did at a similar event last year. The event starts after the luggage would have been dropped off by the stage coach, so there's no need for guests to transport it. Inn staff will carry the trunks from that point inside. The space being recreated is the inn itself and the immediate yard.

If that's not accurate enough, and you'd only want to attend where there are several miles of roads and vehicles available for participants' use also, you probably wouldn't find it an enjoyable event, but at least you'd know that ahead of time and could choose an event more like what you're looking for.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

ley74
08-10-2006, 09:15 PM
One explination is the one I received as a young boy, living on my grandmothers farm in then rural Virginia; "If you get on the work horse, you will ruin him." That was enough for me.

Many folks in the mid-century-before-last could probably not afford the luxury of a horse for anything other than work. A buggy might also be a luxury. Walking is inexpensive.

Look at today's model. Immigrants, legal and illegal, come to this country and eek our a living, usually close enough to work so they can walk. As they progress buses and cars can be afforded.

Where does all the venom come from in these attacks? This post was supposed to be about manners and the moderators appear to allow rather cruel language towards Mr. Trent's well researched assertions. What gives?

tompritchett
08-11-2006, 12:02 AM
Where does all the venom come from in these attacks? This post was supposed to be about manners and the moderators appear to allow rather cruel language towards Mr. Trent's well researched assertions. What gives?

Good point. Unfortunately, RJ's post, while highly critical, did not cross the line into being a personal attack or insult. However, Mr. Trent and others have managed to more than adequately address RJ's criticism.

On another point, because this thread has wondered off its original focus, I am now locking it as most have had their say about manners. If someone does want to add to manners discussion, send me a PM and I will unlock the thread for you.

Provost
08-14-2006, 12:03 AM
Basically the answer is that I do not like rules I can't enforce. If someone signs up as "Fred Jones" I have no way of knowing (without very complicated, expensive and time consuming methods) if they're Fred or not. If someone has a means to achieve this end, please, by all means let me know.

If someone does not sign their post, will not accept emails and generally wants to "shoot from cover," why listen to them? Unless they violate our guidelines, I generally ignore them.

Provost

Provost
08-14-2006, 12:06 AM
Eric,

How do I know it's a real name or a real picture?

Other measures are taken, I assure you.

Provost

Provost
08-14-2006, 12:10 AM
They were lost with the old software and I've been unable to reconstruct them. If anyone has a copy someplace, I'd love to have them back.

tompritchett
11-19-2006, 02:25 PM
I have re-opened this thread for the purpose of discussions in two more areas of what I believe are essential ingredients of proper manners - 1) admitting fault and 2) letting go of past hurts.

All of us are human and make mistakes. We may misread or misinterpret someone's post and react inappropriately or we might react out of anger or hurt and say things that a day or a week later, we may wish that we have never said. It takes courage to admit when you are wrong and it also requires that one humble themself to admit that wrong and offer the appropriate apology. Unfortunately, there are some who either lack that courage or whose ego will never let themself admit to a mistake. Only by admitting to a mistake can one learn from it and grow. As the old chinese proverb goes - A wise man learns from his mistakes, a fool does not.

As far as hard feelings. There are members of this forum who carry grudges for wrongs committed against them years ago. Such negative feelings only act as a poison that slowly festers inside you and blackens all that you see. I know because I have been there - having to leave a job because of negative feelings that I had towards a co-worker for the games she played against both me and my wife, who also worked there at the time. Basically, I gave up control of my emotions to her while I was at work and it carried over to almost everything else when I came home. Some of you may ask if it is really possible to truly let go. Again, from my personal experience, yes. Probably four or five years ago, a disagreement arose between me and another reenactor here which escalated to the point that he literally threatened me with serious physical harm if we ever met on the field. When I read that, I was livid and immediately fired off a warning that such an encounter would probably not go in the opposite way that he envisioned. However, once I cooled down over the next few days, I let go of all those emotions and hard feelings and decided to just treat the person with respect in all of our on-line discussions. Recently, when he had problems logging in, I relayed event announcements for him, and I have defended his events from attacks that I have thought unfair. While neither or us have interacted on-line or in the field enough to call each other friends, in our current interactions there is definitely no sign of those former hard feelings. So, it can be done and, personally, I think that I would have enjoyed my past few years of reenacting half as much had I still been carrying that chip on my shoulder towards that reenactor and what he stood for in the hobby.

Just my two cents and food for further thought and discussion as the grumpy season starts to set in.

ngairish
12-07-2006, 10:07 PM
I appologize to all for any smart remarks I may have made. It was just frustrating coming on here thinking I was going to talk to people with similar interests as mine and see them arguing about things. Not only that but to have rude things said about my unit. Whether a persons unit is acceptable to a person or not it is not their position to display that to a member of that unit. Also I have been sucked into the argument by trying not to take sides but figure out why in the world folks with similar interests can't get along. No wonder this country had a civil war.

Sgt_Pepper
12-08-2006, 01:23 AM
The negative elements you mentioned are part and parcel of dealing with others in Internet discussion forums. The absence of physical presence and relative, sometimes total, anonymity encourages people to say things they wouldn't utter in person. The lack of body language, facial expressions and vocal inflections makes understanding the poster's true meaning that much more difficult. It is the nature of the beast that disagreements, prejudices and agendas will often turn into rancorous exchanges.

This forum is predicated on the free exchange of ideas and information in a polite and respectful manner. The moderators are here to enforce the rules supporting that desired end. It is sometimes a difficult balancing act to walk the line between fruitful discussion and pointless squabbling. We make our best human effort, which is by definition imperfect.

Cooperation from the readers helps us greatly. The most effective way to cooperate is to refrain from engaging in a quarrel in the first place. Another way to help is to use the Alert button. Neither of those methods is employed as often as they could or should be.

Bill_Cross
05-15-2007, 11:45 AM
I have re-opened this thread for the purpose of discussions in two more areas of what I believe are essential ingredients of proper manners - 1) admitting fault and 2) letting go of past hurts.
#2's a good point, Tom, I have friends in the hobby who are still fighting the battles of 2001. Sadly, there are some who continue to bring up these matters looking to tweak the noses of other who have let them go.

I think that admitting fault is unlikely, since in most cases, the differences that have led to such contentious situations are often genuine differences of opinion. For every "snake in the grass" I've known on the Internet, I have known 5 others who simply did not agree with my position or what I was doing.

The problem, as I see it, is those who appoint themselves guardians of this or that (whther authenticity, deconfliction, whatever).

But despite all this, the chances of mending these problems are slim in my opinion. Too many people I talk to will not forgive, much less forget.

tompritchett
05-15-2007, 02:49 PM
Too many people I talk to will not forgive, much less forget.

Unfortunately, you are very right. However, that does not mean that one has to continue the fight. Rather than engage in a negative p*ssing contest with a detractor, I would rather let my actions speak for themselves. When I do feel the need to defend myself, I focus on the postives of my own actions and do not allow myself to sink to the mud-slinging level of the detractor. I can be angry yet rational and controlled, as was shown most recently when another member of this forum made repeated accusations of personal bias in my actions as a moderator here. Basically it takes two to have a p*ssing contest, I no longer have any desire to participate.

Southern Cal
10-25-2007, 01:00 PM
More than once I've had occasion to re-read something I've written in haste and been embarrassed to see the same words again later. The story goes that the ancient Visigoths used to devise their battle plans by getting roaring drunk before a battle then reviewing their impetuous plans the next day while hungover. The first instance was to ensure valor the second to ensure prudence.

bulletsponge
10-25-2007, 01:22 PM
As a rule of thumb, I try never to post anything I wouldn't say to the recipient face to face.

Danny
02-06-2008, 10:14 PM
As someone who has several times been put into the position of being an instigator on another civil war forum, the AC, I would like to throw another .02 cents on this matter of "civility" when posting, that is

- That many interesting and sometimes fascinating facts and ideas come out in a heated thread. I don't know why having a cartridge-paper thin skin is a virtue for a forum trying to bring out the best. I realize that post-baby boomers and gen-x'rs are common to this hobby, perhaps the reason there seems to be a 'politically-correct' undercurrent of posters. The attitude has become that fighting for an idea should be avoided at all cost. Worse, to fight for an idea has somehow become equivelent to a personal attack on the opposer. (I call this muddled thinking, perhaps a legacy of the make-love-not-war 'boomer' generation who became the educators, the history teachers of the recent decades (i.e. Did you know that we 'stole' Texas from the Mexicans? The Native Americans apparently wanted the Mexicans to have Texas).

- At the AC at least, several great threads that were beginning to produce high interest and uncover fascinating facts about the CW were summarily ditched by the Moderators at the beck and call of a very few, typically two or three at most, of the thread contributors. Those few individuals with the cartridge-paper thin self-image of the sort described above.

- For whatever reason, and I don't understand how this could still be the case anywhere in this country, there is still an extreme sensitivity to challenging the nature of the Southern Cause in the CW, especially Lee or Jackson - two hot button words that quickly shut down a thread if mentioned in terms other than flattery and awe. Ditto any mention of Unionism in the South during the war, of which there was plenty, not even counting the slaves.

- Many of the authenticity discussions that turn ugly, if you analyze them, are merely a conflict of the macho, those who insist field soldiers wore dirt and ate dirt most of the time, vs. almost anyone else believing field soldiers wore uniforms and ate palatable forage most of the time - you know, the wimps who can't sleep on rocks like real men.

- Many heated discussions arise from the refusal to recognise and practice the obvious in reenacting, just because it wasn't documented! , as if common human traits didn't exist back then (i.e. cannoneers 'did not' ever plug their ears when firing)

- All that aside, almost anyone can benefit from the example of posts made by Mr. Trent here. Hank is an example of one who successfully mines the course of sometimes heated discussions to extract the gems of interesting concepts and facts, at the same time contributing his own immensely interesting and solidly researched facts - sometimes only two or three posts away from shutdown. He can do this, I believe, because he does not have the thin skin of a shirker, but rather the heart and mind of a searcher. (I apologise Mr. Trent if this embarrasses, but I feel it relevant to this thread).

- To me the only time to draw the line on civility in a thread is to shut down specific personal attacks, not the implied ones, and not based on the whining of one person with a couple of enlisted buddies.

- Oh, one more thing, may the words 'Farb' and 'Pard' never be used again in a CW forum (just kidding).

Dan Wykes

MBond057
02-06-2008, 10:42 PM
Dan,

That hurts my feelings. :)

Danny
02-07-2008, 09:06 AM
Dan,That hurts my feelings. :)

Mark -

Mine too, I guess. I just re-read my own post...like firing grape when solid shot was called for. But can't edit it now so we'll just hope the limber chest stays locked on this one.

- Dan

plankmaker
02-27-2008, 12:52 PM
Wipe the slaw off your chin. Use a napkin, not your sleeve.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

tompritchett
02-28-2008, 12:47 AM
Use a napkin, not your sleeve.

But that only applies when you are eating at the officers' mess or are a guest to the surrounding citizens. In camp around the fire, it is perfectly acceptable to use your sleeve. The old manners biddy, Emily Post, has never had to eat under field conditions so our her rules of etiquette are non-applicable then.

cavgirl
05-23-2008, 01:30 PM
And who are these "boys and girls" you're talking to? I haven't been taken for a boy in quite a while now.


I've been taken for a boy many times, so I'm proud to say that my impression of a male cavalry trooper is working!

I'm just trying to make everyone smile, amidst a serious discussion here.:D

Huck Finn
05-25-2008, 10:58 PM
Tori:

So you are you the one Mrs. Lawson referred to as passing the three feet test? If so, good for you!

Provost
09-16-2008, 05:14 PM
Moved this thread to the New Users forum from the Military Forum because I'd like to cut down the number of stickies at the top of the first page.

Provost

Provost
10-16-2009, 06:02 PM
This page has moved.

http://walternelson.com/dr/?q=node/18