Re: [sca-archery]: f*cking experts...
- NOW I'm impressed with the postings to this list. Keep up the good line.
Chris Nogy wrote:
> Macsen, I didn't say you beat her into the ground - you replied to specific
> retorts (you knew from what you spoke, and did not elevate it past that), and
> that is justified.
> Others got into it and made it hard.
> But by that time the froth was already full spew - that is what I am most
> concerned about in this. I have never seen such a severe knee-jerk reaction
> from such a group.
> You are always justified in slapping back at someone who slaps you - if you
> hold your return to the facts at hand and do not escalate. I have never seen
> you blow up past what was justified, and I have never seen you back off your
> ground. It is a good way to live to gain respect - to let folks know that you
> aren't going to step into their yard ever without an invitation, but you are
> damn straight not going to let them get one foot into yours without an invite.
> Here's something I have noticed. Let me know if I am reading this thing wrong.
> There is a difference between "let's agree to disagree" as it is meant and the
> often used 'let's agree to disagree, now shut up while I am ahead" that we
> often see nowdays.
> The best and most productive communications in a forum of this type revolve
> around the debate between ideas that clash and people who hold those ideas.
> The most productive that these debates get is when they are passionate but
> still working on point-counterpoint. The two extremes - one where somebody
> says 'shut up and drop it' and the other in which one says 'I'm not gonna try
> anymore" (guilty) can destroy much opportunity for knowlege.
> So let's agree that we can disagree and still advance our activity by civil, if
> passionate, debate on good solid topics, and we will all be much the better for
> So will our next listmaster.
> > From: "Bob & Nancy Upson" <wyvern@...>, on 7/30/1999 12:54 PM:
> > > work hard to make sure they collect facts . In one instance I have
> > > witnessed one individual - Tracy - get beaten into the ground because she
> > > asked for information about something she was unsure about, and boy, did
> > > she get an answer.
> > Whoa, Kaz! I've been working very hard to get the list transition
> > over with and to stay out of this but I want to be damned that the
> > facts remain clear on the table. =)
> > Let's review the sequence of events again:
> > 1. Loric asks about back quivers. (No, Loric, there are no dumb
> > questions -- keep asking!)
> > 2. I comment that I know of extensive documentation gathered by
> > Mistress Kendra. Off the top of my head the one particular item I
> > recall involved the Bayeux Tapestry.
> > 3. Tracy chimes in with a sarcastic, "If we want to believe that
> > "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
> > reasearch what they did do first and emulate that-not find
> > justification for preference. "
> > 4. Tracy gets beaten into the ground for both her snobbish attitude
> > ("emulating Errorl Flynn movies") and for insulting Kendra's
> > intelligence and my own ("if we want to believe back quivers are
> > period we will") -- obviously *her* failure to find documentation
> > means that Mistress Kendra's is suspect and I'm wrong for having
> > the temerity to contradict her preconceived notions.
> > 5. Straw breaks camel's back. List moves elsewhere.
> > Macsen
> > _____________________________________________________________
> > ALL WYVERN HALL SCA LISTS ARE MOVING TO ONELIST.COM
> > CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS WILL BE TRANSFERRED AUTOMATICALLY
> > YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED WHEN IT IS TIME TO SWITCH OVER
> > Copyright (C) 1999 Wyvern Hall. All rights reserved.
> ALL WYVERN HALL SCA LISTS ARE MOVING TO ONELIST.COM
> CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS WILL BE TRANSFERRED AUTOMATICALLY
> YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED WHEN IT IS TIME TO SWITCH OVER
> Copyright (C) 1999 Wyvern Hall. All rights reserved.