12Re: Quivers etc
- Jul 30, 1999BlkKnightI@... wrote:
> From: BlkKnightI@...
> >2. I comment that I know of extensive documentation gathered byWhich in no way invalidates whatever other documentation was found
> Mistress Kendra. Off the top of my head the one particular item I
> recall involved the Bayeux Tapestry.<
> Your statement was shown faulty in that the archer (only one) in
> the Tapestry, indeed has a quiver on a belt around his shoulders,
> is using a back quiver. I and several others viewed the tapestry
> and that its a back quiver is questionable-Hardly documentation.
by Mistress Kendra. Nor is Macsen's "statement" in any way "faulty,"
his memory is merely incomplete.
> We have yet to see the documentation mentioned over and over again.As am I. Unfortunately, the only way to see the documentation would
> I too am interested in it.
be to find Mistress Kendra, which no one, apparently, now knows how
> >3. Tracy chimes in with a sarcastic, "If we want to believe thatIt was sarcastic, completely uncalled-for, and a rather sorry example
> "back quivers"are period we will. And if you choose to emulate
> Errol Flynn movies, that too is a matter of choice. I prefer to
> research what they did do first and emulate that-not find
> justification for preference. "<
> Tracy was not being sarcastic at all. She had offered her scholarly
> observations and offered a conclusion. She stated the obvious, and
> I think her approach in attempting to be period should be commended.
of both ad hominum and straw man arguments.
Saying that anyone would start from a desire to believe in something
and then set out to find documentation to prove it is perhaps the
worst insult that can be offered anyone who does research. It would
be just as easy -- and uncalled-for -- to claim that your wife set
out to prove a belief that back quivers did not exist in period.
The reference to Errol Flynn movies came from a gentle who offered
the pattern for that back quiver to any who were interested. There
was no claim whatsoever of it being either period or documentable.
> She also did not insult Kendras intelligence (Kendra never said aSo far, as you say. That one person has not duplicated another's
> thing on this list) but asked for documentation for your statements
> which you have failed to provide. I now question your intelligence.
> Her "notions" are not preconceived but based on scholarly study. So
> far...so Far mind you, noone else has found and offered sources or
> documentation on the "back quiver" either.
research often means only that A. it is not something that has come
up as an item of interest, or B. access to the same sources is not
available. To question that person's intelligence based on a third
person's apparently *incomplete* scholarly research merely makes you
100% pure, Grade A, American Mutt caffeine!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>