BGA or GAC

[50th VA Corporal]

Did'nt we not too long ago on this forum go through all of this attributes of one event versus another event about Gettysburg?

Almost all the same players chiming in on each side.

Reruns.

Worse yet, with so much time to elapse between now and the events are we gonna beat up the topic again and again?

Next time someone asks BGA or GAC why don't we just post "use the search function". Then they can see for themselves this topic has been just about been beat to death and just brings up divisive dialog and cast in stone unbending opinions.

With this kind of discourse I cannot even fathom why anyone going to GAC would want to state so and open themselves to public tounge lashing.

[indguard]

I have to say, I always find it a bit disgusting that Americans will attack something because it is "for profit."

I can't think of a more un-American avenue of attack on ANYTHING in a land born of capitalist ideals.

If you want to reenact the ideals of the Soviet Union, please do it somewhere else.

Now, we can have a discussion about authenticity, we can bemoan an event that isn't friendly to our needs, we can bemoan an event that might not serve the public... there are all sorts of reasons to attack an event. But attacking something merely because it is "for profit" has no place in America.

WTH

The SayTheRightThing mess

[S.D.Swart]

The difference is where the profit is going Indguard. And, this profit is being made of the backs of the reenactors, yet we get no say in what we want from the GAC. For too many years this has been going on, and finally the Longstreet Corp stands up and request changes made to support the reenactor, and they get snubbed. This has nothing to do with profits themselves. FYI: After raising funds for noble causes, and paying for the events needs, BGA barely breaks even. GAC raises money for causes too, but it gouges both the reenactor and spectator. Now you want to talk about other reasons, fine.

1. Authenticity. No comparison. BGA with have progressive brigades, and a minimum standard for the rest.
2. Battles: Again BGA will have scenarios on ground that can handle the numbers properly, and accurately.
3. Safety: Again BGA event do thier best to ensure a higher standard in safety.
4. People: BGA has some top quality people that know what they are doing. I have confidence in those in charge, not so with the GAC.
5. BGA welcomes all reenactors willing to work together, and does so in a fine manner. It is a unifier of the progressives and the mainstream and have been successful in doing so over the last few years. GAC, does not consider the needs of the different reenactors, only the needs of the GAC.

There ya go.

Now, that said, if others want to go to the GAC. Feel free to do so, I will not complain about lack of numbers or division of the hobby. I go where I wish, and where I feel like part of something worthwile. Others can do the same. No harm, no foul.

[indguard]

"The difference is where the profit is going Indguard."

Not, really. There should be NO "difference" at all where the profit margin is concerned. I could not care less where the profit is going. Do you get upset that when you buy a car and the "profit" is going to the car company? Do you get upset when you go bowling that the profit is going to the bowling alley? Of course not. You enjoy the services or products

Seriously, I think you people really need an attitude adjustment on this whole question about profit.

This is friggin America, people. If you hate money so much, maybe you should take up Occupy Wall Street and forget about civil war reenacting.

Again, if you don't like the way the GAC event is run... that is a perfectly legitimate gripe. Don't go. And, Mr. Smith, HERE is how markets work. If the GAC event charges too much and ruins its own business, then they've hurt themselves. They deserve their fate.

I have no problem at all with what BGA does with its $$. If it invests all its profits into preservation, well that is admirable. But if BGA used all its money to buy a vacation home in Florida, I'd have no problem with that, either. Just as I simply don't care what GAC does with its profits.

I don't fault anyone for choosing BGA over GAC nor do I fault anyone for doing the opposite.

But I have a MAJOR problem with people choosing the "anti-profit" argument for one of their reasons. It's just un-American. I think we can argue about what event is better without going to the absurd argument of anti-capitalism. We've fought wars over this, ya know?

WTH
The AdamSmith Mess

[S.D.Swart]

Humm, Not going to agrue IndGuard. You asked, I stated why. Plus you only took the first sentence, and out of context to the rest of the post. No one is saying make profits are bad. Have fun at the GAC.

nuff said.

[hanktrent]

But I have a MAJOR problem with people choosing the "anti-profit" argument for one of their reasons. It's just un-American.

I tend to lean toward the opinion that reenacting is more about purchasing a commodity than donating to a charity, so I'll "buy" a weekend at any event that seems worth the price. But I can understand the reasoning that some people use, when they choose an event based on where the funds go. Even Americans take a break from greed every once in a while, to exercise their generosity.

If reenactors picture what they're doing as volunteering their time and donating their money for historic education and preservation, rather than buying a weekend getaway, it makes sense they'd want to know where their donations were going. People don't like to give either volunteer labor or money to charities that eat up all the funds with administrative expenses.

If they were just purchasing a weekend experience package--("what'll we do this weekend, honey, the dude ranch, the wine country tour, the fantasy baseball camp or the Civil War reenactment?")--then I agree, it's like any other for-profit business, and what the owners do with the income they get from their customers is up to them.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Pvt Schnapps]

"The difference is where the profit is going Indguard."

Not, really. There should be NO "difference" at all where the profit margin is concerned. I could not care less where the profit is going. Do you get upset that when you buy a car and the "profit" is going to the car company? Do you get upset when you go bowling that the profit is going to the bowling alley? Of course not. You enjoy the services or products

Seriously, I think you people really need an attitude adjustment on this whole question about profit.

This is friggin America, people. If you hate money so much, maybe you should take up Occupy Wall Street and forget about civil war reenacting.

Again, if you don't like the way the GAC event is run... that is a perfectly legitimate gripe. Don't go. And, Mr. Smith, HERE is how markets work. If the GAC event charges too much and ruins its own business, then they've hurt themselves. They deserve their fate.

I have no problem at all with what BGA does with its $$. If it invests all its profits into preservation, well that is admirable. But if BGA used all its money to buy a vacation home in Florida, I'd have no problem with that, either. Just as I simply don't care what GAC does with its profits.

I don't fault anyone for choosing BGA over GAC nor do I fault anyone for doing the opposite.

But I have a MAJOR problem with people choosing the "anti-profit" argument for one of their reasons. It's just un-American. I think we can argue about what event is better without going to the absurd argument of anti-capitalism. We've fought wars over this, ya know?

WTH
The AdamSmith Mess

Two points, IndGuard.

First, you don't have to be a socialist to object to the for-profit nature of GAC, just a dissatisfied customer. If they were competent capitalists they'd provide a decent product and no one would begrudge them the profit. Instead they provide poorly scripted and abysmally executed "reenactments" for which they overcharge both the participants and the spectators. When people accuse them of being "for profit" it's just shorthand for "for profit" and nothing else. You're right in that we wouldn't make such an accusation against a car company or a bowling alley if they delivered a service. But if the car company delivered only lemons and the bowling alley charged a premium rate to set up 8 or 12 pins on a warped alley just to make money, you'd forgive people for bitching about "for profit."

Second, most Americans -- not socialists or communists or occupiers, just Americans -- can draw a line between things that you can properly turn a profit on and more sacred objectives. Feel free to make a profit on a county fair or a rock and roll tour, but don't you dare have the gall to accuse people of being anti-free enterprise because they expect a little more respect for those who gave their lives for a sacred cause. That's just disgusting, and unworthy of anyone who claims to honor our heritage.

Thanks for red-baiting honest citizens who love their history, IndGuard. Please enjoy your experience at GAC, because your presence at BGA would just nauseate the rest of us.

[indguard]

LOL: "...because your presence at BGA would just nauseate the rest of us"

And THERE is the arrogance and ignorance that gives some such a bad name.

Figures. Some people just can't take any criticism at all.

WTH
The ScruU mess

[Provost-ADC]

Friends,

Cut the polemics please. Get back to answering the original poster.

[Quickstep]

I’ll be attending the one with the best pie.