Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: Targets and such

Expand Messages
  • Carolus von Eulenhorst
    I don t recall any unsupported statements of opinion. Merely that we do not have documented evidence of the activity of western archers activities which
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't recall any "unsupported statements" of opinion. Merely that we do
      not have documented evidence of the activity of western archers activities
      which backup claims of distance and accuracy. And that is the core of the
      original postulate - not that remarkable feats were occasionally achieved
      by specific, extraordinary individuals. That that occurred you have shown
      well. What has not been shown is support for the contention that such
      results were reproducible and common by the typical archer. I am not
      saying that what you are doing is without value or is not true. What I am
      saying is that it does not support the original contention. I am also
      trying to point out where our "research" fails. Yes, Evian's work was
      exemplary and would be the target for which we all aim. Please note my
      many posts in the past where I stated I had heard or read things but did
      not have support for them. I present them as anecdotal support only, not
      documented evidence. Honesty in our sources is the primary consideration
      here. I also point out that the questions which led to Evian's work were
      also historical in nature and a high degree of proof was demanded. If we
      accept less in our own discussions we demean ourselves, our work, and our
      credibility in future studies. If you read the archives of this and the
      missile combat list you will see that I an very consistent in my criticisms
      over years of work.

      At 03:45 AM 4/30/2005, you wrote:

      >--- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, Carolus von Eulenhorst
      ><eulenhorst@e...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Please note that I am only holding the archers to the same
      >standard of proof I called for when we were debating the
      >effectiveness of archery versus armor. Fair is fair.
      > > Carolus
      >This I find sort of amusing. If you recall, I first psoted on this
      >topic in response to completely unsupported statements of a
      >universal nature (opinions) offered by yourself. I even asked for
      >documentation, but none was forthcoming. So I stopped construction
      >on my home long enough to do a little research, all of which you do
      >not like for one reason or another, little of which has to do
      >with 'research' methods, such as you 'opinion' as to what items in
      >heistory are relevant to 'western culture'.
      >Now we can look at your two responses just given. In (1) you do not
      >offer counter-documentation or dispute the fact of the shoot, but
      >wish to arue the author's right to place the article in terms his
      >readers would understand -- not everyone is writing a master's
      >thesis, you know. Yet on (20, becuase it apparently goes against
      >some pet theory, you would wish to translate the given distance into
      >your own terms. What? Fair is fair.
      >If you feel a need to police postings here please be consistent. If
      >you wish to conduct a 'scholarly' research project then there are
      >documented guidelines to follow from any university. If you wish to
      >encourage exploration and research of a 'fun nature' (in keeping
      >with the concept of the SCA game) then all 'found items' should be
      >encouraged, with each reader using the information as they will.
      >Those wishing a more 'scholarly view' may do so off-list as friend
      >Blackthorne did.
      >Naturally, 'opinions' based on ones personal feelings about the
      >things they read and see should also be encouraged -- and stated
      >as 'opinions' -- not as facts or universal claims. An archer's
      >chosen garb is supposed to reflect research into persona
      >develpment. When on the field, do you accost each participant with
      >observations about the inconsistencies of their cloths? Do you bar
      >an archer from the lists because the color of his fletchings are
      >inconsistent with the period of his chosen name? I doubt it -- so
      >why do it here?
      >The 'purpose' of the Group is clearly stated as "discussions of
      >traditional archery in the SCA." For me, your recent comments are
      >not meant to foster 'discussion' but to filter ideas and concepts
      >according to previously held beliefs and assumptions. That is your
      >right, but please don't pretend it is 'educational'. Try learning
      >something NEW occationally.
      >To this end, I will quit providing any documentation at all! Anyone
      >wishing to do a formal and proper research project may contact me
      >off-list. Feel free to offer any opinion related to my postings as
      >you will, but pray do not so under any pretence of 'research'. If
      >you wish to encourage contributions on a theme, please start each
      >post with a statement of that theme so that all know what you are
      >comparing the ideas to, and do not assume that any posting of mine
      >is in response to any unstated theme just because it seems to fit.
      > pedantically yours,
      > kinjal
      >Brought to you YahooGroups Ad Free in 2003 by Medieval Mart
      >Get Medieval at Mad Macsen's http://www.medievalmart.com/
      >[Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com to leave this list]
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >No virus found in this incoming message.
      >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005

      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.