Uhhh.......Should we start checking everyone's cartridges to make sure no one
brings any life rounds to the next few events?????????
From: raynersteve <steverayner@...
Sent: Sun, October 31, 2010 9:52:17 PM
Subject: [Revlist] Re: Authenticity - Root Issues
Dear Sir & List;
Please elaborate on how people at "the top of the food chain" are giving the
hobby a black eye?
Seems to me that any setting of standards, wherever they may be set, is by
definition exclusionary to some part of the whole. How low do we propose to set
the bar to include all comers? So please explain how standards for educational
quality are to be upheld, when efforts to define what is and is not historical
fact are disregarded or met with evasive and obstructive tactics.
To the proposal of creating a Union or Guild, it is re-inventing the wheel.
Several organizations have established tried just such measures - since the
beginning of re-enacting the American Revolution. The problem remains that even
with the combination of access to study materials through mentoring, and
enforcement of standards, no effort can have effect when they are met with
indifference, defiance and pettifogging.
As far as documentation is concerned, we have a long way to go before the
difference between strong physical documentation and no evidence whatsoever is a
Internet discussion boards looked promising at first, for the purpose of free
exchange of /accurate/ historical information (free, I might add, to the
membership) of all kinds. Many have tried...
Your Humble Servant,
--- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, "The Science Guy" <brunschweigers@...> wrote:
> The unmentioned point of this was that there has been constant focus on those
>at the bottom of the food chain who haven't come up to the minimum standard but
>there has been no mention of those at the upper level of the food chain that are
>giving the hobby a black eye and/or are turning people away from the hobby
>solely because they can't get past them self. In order to solve the problem we
>need to be mindful of the fact that there is a problem at the other end as well.
> For 75% of the people in this hobby the majority of what I wrote is unrelated.
>The next 10% will read this and do a self evaluation and see that they may be
>close to the line and take a step back, meaning they have their head and heart
>in the right place but may have gotten sucked along by others. The next 10% this
>does relate to. The last 5% have their nose so bent out of joint they just won't
>get it. Are all progressives bad people, certainly not but some are. Are all
>knowledgeable people bad, certainly not. We have a lot of good knowledgeable
>people in this hobby who engage in debate to learn things from others just as we
>have people who are trying to do the right thing with accuracy. The difference
>is they don't let it go to their head and try to make rules to exclude those
>that do not meet "their" standards or belittle people in order to be right.
> "Lead by example" means exactly what it says. Don't tell me I am wrong when you
>are doing the same thing. It means set the example, set the standard by doing it
>yourself. Be a mentor to new people or those that need help meeting the
>standard, providing guidance, training, and information to allow them to
>improve. This goes not only for the unit leadership and people who have been in
>the hobby forever but anyone who has been in the hobby five minutes longer than
>the new guy. And lastly, treat people as you would want treated. How would you
>like it if someone told you that you couldn't participate because you weren't
>perfect but wouldn't provide the information to make the corrections? It's
>simple leadership 101.
> Now to my suggested solution.( I had used the term Union but someone contacted
>me off line and suggested using the term Guild, which I agree with) The idea is
>to promote minimum standards to be used by all of us and possibly provided to
>the event staff to say that this is the standard they should expect. Items
>within this standard would be accepted based on primary documentation. If there
>is an item that has been in use for the last 30 or 40 years for which there is
>no documentation to justify it then it will be discussed and voted on (I would
>vote for discontinuing it). On the other side of the coin, if an individual or
>unit wants to exceed the standards all the better but the idea of the minimum
>standard is also to prevent people from trying to force their views on others
>(unless the majority feel the need to up the standards) .
> J.H. Moses
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]