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

umbrella groups

Expand Messages
  • yawors1@uwindsor.ca
    I ve never experienced one along the lines of the Rev War, Civil War, F& I, etc. What ARE their advantages? I m just assuming there must be some!
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 2, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      I've never experienced one along the lines of the Rev War, Civil War, F& I, etc. What ARE their advantages? I'm just assuming there must be some!
    • Roger Fuller
      To return to an old thread, the two things I feel that an umbrella group is good for are: 1) screening of events for such things as safety, event features and
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 16, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        To return to an old thread, the two things I feel that an umbrella group is
        good for are:

        1) screening of events for such things as safety, event features and
        expectations, camp areas and water, accessibility to medical care, etc.
        (This pre-supposes that the leaders of the given umbrella group are
        competent and have our best interests in mind.) and

        2) serving as a clearinghouse for (I should hope) well-researched patterns
        and drillbooks as well as maintaining standards of dress, drill and safety
        among the various member groups.

        Insurance is another issue altogether.

        I have the honour to be, &c, &c,
        Roger Fuller
        Sgt., 3/95th Foot.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: yawors1@... <yawors1@...>
        To: WarOf1812@onelist.com <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
        Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 11:48 PM
        Subject: [WarOf1812] umbrella groups


        >From: yawors1@...
        >
        >I've never experienced one along the lines of the Rev War, Civil War, F& I,
        etc. What ARE their advantages? I'm just assuming there must be some!
        >
      • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
        The biggest advantage of an umbrella group is that the re-enactors, who actually get out on the field run the show rather than someone who just happens to have
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 16, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          The biggest advantage of an umbrella group is that the re-enactors, who
          actually get out on the field run the show rather than someone who just
          happens to have access to a piece of land and whose competence to script / run
          a battle may be a bit limited.

          The problem is that if every group insists on only getting together on the
          field the site people will always divide and conquer, usually choosing as
          field commanders people whose main quality is that they are a friend. Recently
          one of our officers attended a 'Napoleonic' event where the British, CO didn't
          even re enact British let alone have any idea of the drill manual. He (the NA
          officer) was told, as I recall, that he could take part as a private during
          the day and could use his officer kit in the evenings.

          So the great advantage is that we know who we are on the field with and that
          we have common standards of dress and drill. We know what the organization is
          and where we fit in it. As we begin to found a structure for our weekends I
          would like to see Brigade meetings where everyone can have their say on how we
          can improve what we do.

          Remember we are based on the Napoleonic Association, and association is a very
          important word. We are a collection of independent units that 'associate' in
          order to do our thing. How a unit runs itself will never be encroached upon by
          the whole but working together the whole can make life a lot easier for the
          individual unit.


          Cheers
        • Sean
          And now my response ... ... I d love to show an open mind but due to past experience with this topic in discussion and attempted practice I find that
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 14, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            And now my response ...

            >Oh! Now that shows an open mind willing to weigh the pros and cons doesn't
            >it? :-)


            I'd love to show an open mind but due to past experience with this topic in
            discussion and attempted practice I find that difficult.

            eg. Again the "cartridges down the barrel" safety issue. (Yes, I suppose I
            am harping on it but...) I presented valid reasons for it and was given
            none to refute it other than "nothing down the barrel, nothing out."
            Eventually the responding argument had degenerated into somthing along the
            lines of "NOTHING DOWN THE BARREL. PERIOD." A very convincing arguement
            don't you think. there was no flexibility shown towards me so why should I
            show any in return.

            >What power? Are we talking about NATO or 1812 re-enactment?
            >
            >So units with good, competent, officers will have these officers taken away
            >from them at larger re enactments in order to fill jobs that could be filled
            >by a permanent staff. What is the unit supposed to do? Vote on a competent
            >replacement for the competent officer who has just been removed? And when do
            >they do this? The meeting usually takes place on the morning of the action,
            >so the unit does not find out until a couple of hours before it marches onto
            >the field that it will not have its officer in command?

            I'm talking about the power that popular or well known officers are given
            and I'm not refering to officers who are necessarily the most competent. I
            saw a officer who was not so well known but extremely competent (a
            reenactor of officer rank for about 10 years and also a Captain in the REAL
            army) be given command of the entire British forces. The appointed safety
            officer constantly countermanded the officer in commands orders on field
            and created a very dangerous situation. The safety officer was popular or
            at least well known but it was he that made the situation dangerous. In
            another instance I saw an officer who had no troops be given the freedom to
            wander the field as he would attaching himself where he wanted. He was able
            to do this because he was popular and well know. Granted he took no command
            but an officer that had a body of troops was removed from them and given
            one of the colours to carry because it was deemed that there were too many
            officers and he was an unknown to the overall commander. He was a good
            officer. This now officerless body of troops was then attached to another
            unit. The well known fellow with no troops should have been carrying the
            flag not the unknown fellow with troops.

            >BTW I seem to recall that real Staff officers did not actually exercise
            >personal command
            >over units. The fact that this was never done at the time makes me curious as
            >to why you think it should be a requirement for those who play staff officers
            >on weekends.

            'Tis true that these Staff Officers exercised no command over troops on the
            field in real life but in reenactment life they would be doing exactly
            that. They would be the commanders who did what they wanted and sent
            forward the troops who's fellows they liked. I can sight Fort George as an
            example for this. A few of the popular well known units were sent out first
            to begin the battle, the rest were held in reserve. Not a problem so far,
            that is how real battles happen. Next several more units were sent out
            while a few others were again held back. As the battle started to grind
            down the few fellows left were told " Okay you guys might as well go
            now..." (Yes, that was the actual command). The units that went out first
            fired over 30 rounds a man and said they had a great time. The last units
            to take the field fired 3 rounds at the backs of some fast disappearing
            enemy.

            >Really? I would have thought that if someone had put the work time and money
            >into getting good kit together they would care more about the period. I would
            >love you to quote an example of this moronic talk by someone who looked good.

            I heard an infanteer say that men would sometimes carry their own tents on
            their backs with up to 100 pounds of kit, then march more than 20 miles and
            then fight a battle. I heard an artillery man say that it took 9 pounds of
            powder to fire a 9 pound gun and that this is where they got the name from
            and I heard a navy man say that they often fell in line with soldier whilst
            carrying their boarding pikes and that is why a sailor was braver than a
            soldier. All of these fellows had very good uniforms. They were also
            dishing out bull**** to a crowd who knew very lttle and therefore had to
            take the statements at face value.



            Cpl. Sean Hirst
            Royal Newfoundland Reg't, Lt. Coy
            *********************************
            945-0591


            >BTW Sean why do you feel the need to append your rank to every post? :-)))))
            >
            >SORRY, SORRY, JOKE!!!!!!!!

            Oops! There I go again. Several other people do it as well so don't forget
            to ask them why. Maybe it's because I feel empowered by the mighty rank of
            corporal. Yes that's it. I love to imagine people quaking as they see
            'corporal' before my name. ;-]

            Or maybe that's just how my preset signature is and it automatically
            attaches to all my posts. :-)))))

            Or maybe it's not important enough to question and we should just except
            that this is how my posts are sent out. :-)))))
          • mmathews@xxxx.xxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
            ... (snip) ... It s not the paper down the barrel that concerns me, but the means of forcing it down. I ve personally seen rammers launched at Waterloo by a
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 14, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              >From: Sean <shirst@...>
              >
              (snip)
              >
              >eg. Again the "cartridges down the barrel" safety issue. (Yes, I suppose I
              >am harping on it but...) I presented valid reasons for it and was given
              >none to refute it other than "nothing down the barrel, nothing out."
              >Eventually the responding argument had degenerated into somthing along the
              >lines of "NOTHING DOWN THE BARREL. PERIOD." A very convincing arguement
              >don't you think. there was no flexibility shown towards me so why should I
              >show any in return.

              It's not the paper down the barrel that concerns me, but the means of
              forcing it down. I've personally seen rammers launched at Waterloo by a
              "French" unit on our left, and that's scarey. I've heard of episodes in
              ACW reenacting where it has happened, and I'm confident that in the
              excitement of even a fake battle men *could* get caught up when the
              commands to present go out. Also, the use of paper does increase the
              (admittedly) minute chance of a charge going off when you pour and tamp the
              powder down. A rammer then becomes an ICBM with potentially disastrous
              effects.

              Wanna hear my pet shooting peeve? It's elevating the muskets. To me that
              just makes the unburnt powder and other residue travel farther, thereby
              *increasing* the likelyhood of ending up in someone's eye. Seems better to
              shoot level or even slightly depressed, which also looks a damn sight
              better. But this has been decreed by my F&I governing body, and so I obey.
              Perhaps you all ignore this convention? My relative newness showing
              again.

              BTW, I wonder what cavalrymen think of us elevating our muskets, right into
              line with their faces. Chris F.?

              Regards,
              Michael


              Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
              Voice: (507) 285-7585 Fax: (507) 280-5568
              ------------------------------
              "Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
            • Sean
              Michael, Sorry if you thought this was directed at you. Your post came out in the middle of my authoring of this diatribe. It was meant to enforce my point at
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 14, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Michael,

                Sorry if you thought this was directed at you. Your post came out in the
                middle of my authoring of this diatribe. It was meant to enforce my point
                at how people can be inflexible about certain points.

                >It's not the paper down the barrel that concerns me, but the means of
                >forcing it down. I've personally seen rammers launched at Waterloo by a
                >"French" unit on our left, and that's scarey. I've heard of episodes in
                >ACW reenacting where it has happened, and I'm confident that in the
                >excitement of even a fake battle men *could* get caught up when the
                >commands to present go out. Also, the use of paper does increase the
                >(admittedly) minute chance of a charge going off when you pour and tamp the
                >powder down. A rammer then becomes an ICBM with potentially disastrous
                >effects.

                As to paper down the barrel...

                I'm refering to the paper being placed in the end of the gun only. Not with
                it being rammed down. Ramming would indeed be ideal but we can not account
                for an unknown amount of high strung flinchmeisters in the ranks. After
                all, the safest way to truly use this weapon is in exactly the fashion it
                was meant to be used.

                I also agree with you on elevated barrels. It would seem to me that we
                would then have to explain to the public that the weapon isn't meant to be
                a mortar but that this practice is because of safey anal people in control.
                Muskets are safe to fire level at ranges as close as fifteen yards. It can
                get pretty loud at this range but if the weapon is loaded properly, even
                with a RAMMED paper cartridge, nothing travels this far...NOTHING! We've
                done the tests, we have the proof! (Again, not directed at you, Michael,
                just a statement to the general reader.)


                Cpl. Sean Hirst
                Royal Newfoundland Reg't, Lt. Coy
                *********************************
                945-0591

                Oh, but damn me, there's that pesky rank again. :-)
              • mmathews@xxxx.xxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                ... No concern, even if I thought it was I ve learned to be thick skinned. A necessity when you portray the French of any period around here! ;-) I suppose
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 14, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  >From: Sean <shirst@...>
                  >
                  >Michael,
                  >
                  >Sorry if you thought this was directed at you. Your post came out in the
                  >middle of my authoring of this diatribe. It was meant to enforce my point
                  >at how people can be inflexible about certain points.

                  No concern, even if I thought it was I've learned to be thick skinned. A
                  necessity when you portray the French of any period around here! ;-) I
                  suppose if an event has an inflexible attitude/rules you can always vote
                  with your feet like you said earlier and not attend. But if we had an
                  established system by which the sites were expected to abide... but I
                  digress.

                  (snip)
                  >
                  >As to paper down the barrel...
                  >
                  >I'm refering to the paper being placed in the end of the gun only. Not with
                  >it being rammed down. Ramming would indeed be ideal but we can not account
                  >for an unknown amount of high strung flinchmeisters in the ranks. After
                  >all, the safest way to truly use this weapon is in exactly the fashion it
                  >was meant to be used.

                  I guess I'm dense today. So if we sacrifice realism by not ramming paper,
                  and we aren't getting any extra "bang" for the buck by not compressing the
                  powder, what's the point? Perhaps I should expand, the point in
                  antagonizing sites, etc.?

                  >I also agree with you on elevated barrels. It would seem to me that we
                  >would then have to explain to the public that the weapon isn't meant to be
                  >a mortar but that this practice is because of safey anal people in control.
                  >Muskets are safe to fire level at ranges as close as fifteen yards. It can
                  >get pretty loud at this range but if the weapon is loaded properly, even
                  >with a RAMMED paper cartridge, nothing travels this far...NOTHING! We've
                  >done the tests, we have the proof! (Again, not directed at you, Michael,
                  >just a statement to the general reader.)

                  I've wanted to do some tests on our own with a white plywood panel,
                  examining each time between shots for evidence of powder particles or
                  burns. People keep giving me these huge distances where they have "felt"
                  impacts that I frankly have to keep from laughing. Perhaps one day.

                  >Cpl. Sean Hirst
                  >
                  >Oh, but damn me, there's that pesky rank again. :-)

                  Is nothing but a triffle,

                  El Supremo
                  (Gregory Peck's "Hornblower" was just on TV)

                  ps. Hey! I can't state to it's authenticity, but I've certainly enjoyed
                  A&Es first two episode of Hornblower.

                  Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
                  Voice: (507) 285-7585 Fax: (507) 280-5568
                  ------------------------------
                  "Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
                • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                  In a message dated 4/14/99 12:17:38 PM Central Daylight Time, shirst@hca.mnsi.net writes:
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 15, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 4/14/99 12:17:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
                    shirst@... writes:

                    << I'm talking about the power that popular or well known officers are given
                    and I'm not refering to officers who are necessarily the most competent. I
                    saw a officer who was not so well known but extremely competent (a
                    reenactor of officer rank for about 10 years and also a Captain in the REAL
                    army) be given command of the entire British forces. The appointed safety
                    officer constantly countermanded the officer in commands orders on field
                    and created a very dangerous situation. The safety officer was popular or
                    at least well known but it was he that made the situation dangerous. In
                    another instance I saw an officer who had no troops be given the freedom to
                    wander the field as he would attaching himself where he wanted. He was able
                    to do this because he was popular and well know. Granted he took no command
                    but an officer that had a body of troops was removed from them and given
                    one of the colours to carry because it was deemed that there were too many
                    officers and he was an unknown to the overall commander. He was a good
                    officer. This now officerless body of troops was then attached to another
                    unit. The well known fellow with no troops should have been carrying the
                    flag not the unknown fellow with troops.

                    >BTW I seem to recall that real Staff officers did not actually exercise
                    >personal command
                    >over units. The fact that this was never done at the time makes me curious
                    as
                    >to why you think it should be a requirement for those who play staff
                    officers
                    >on weekends.

                    'Tis true that these Staff Officers exercised no command over troops on the
                    field in real life but in reenactment life they would be doing exactly
                    that. They would be the commanders who did what they wanted and sent
                    forward the troops who's fellows they liked. I can sight Fort George as an
                    example for this. A few of the popular well known units were sent out first
                    to begin the battle, the rest were held in reserve. Not a problem so far,
                    that is how real battles happen. Next several more units were sent out
                    while a few others were again held back. As the battle started to grind
                    down the few fellows left were told " Okay you guys might as well go
                    now..." (Yes, that was the actual command). The units that went out first
                    fired over 30 rounds a man and said they had a great time. The last units
                    to take the field fired 3 rounds at the backs of some fast disappearing
                    enemy.>>


                    Sean, you have just made one of the best arguments for a permanent staff
                    structure that I have ever seen! The person you describe obviously should not
                    be in a command job and under a properly regulated system he would not be.


                    << I heard an infanteer say that men would sometimes carry their own tents on
                    their backs with up to 100 pounds of kit, then march more than 20 miles and
                    then fight a battle. I heard an artillery man say that it took 9 pounds of
                    powder to fire a 9 pound gun and that this is where they got the name from
                    and I heard a navy man say that they often fell in line with soldier whilst
                    carrying their boarding pikes and that is why a sailor was braver than a
                    soldier. All of these fellows had very good uniforms. They were also
                    dishing out bull**** to a crowd who knew very lttle and therefore had to
                    take the statements at face value
                    >>

                    As you rightly state this is some of the most arrant rubbish I have ever
                    heard, the people concerned have obviously never bothered to crack a book on
                    the period. If as you say these are officers I would be interested to know
                    who to avoid recommending for command positions at Waterloo!

                    Cheers

                    Tim
                  • Christopher Franke
                    ... THOUSANDS of square m Re-Elevation or depression of weapons re cavalry. If cavalry are at a range where they can catch some powder or such common sense
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 16, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael Mathews wrote:
                      >
                      > From: mmathews@... (Michael Mathews)
                      >
                      > >From: Sean <shirst@...>
                      > >
                      > (snip)
                      > >
                      > >eg. Again the "cartridges down the barrel" safety issue. (Yes, I suppose I
                      > >am harping on it but...) I presented valid reasons for it and was given
                      > >none to refute it other than "nothing down the barrel, nothing out."
                      > >Eventually the responding argument had degenerated into somthing along the
                      > >lines of "NOTHING DOWN THE BARREL. PERIOD." A very convincing arguement
                      > >don't you think. there was no flexibility shown towards me so why should I
                      > >show any in return.
                      >
                      > It's not the paper down the barrel that concerns me, but the means of
                      > forcing it down. I've personally seen rammers launched at Waterloo by a
                      > "French" unit on our left, and that's scarey. I've heard of episodes in
                      > ACW reenacting where it has happened, and I'm confident that in the
                      > excitement of even a fake battle men *could* get caught up when the
                      > commands to present go out. Also, the use of paper does increase the
                      > (admittedly) minute chance of a charge going off when you pour and tamp the
                      > powder down. A rammer then becomes an ICBM with potentially disastrous
                      > effects.
                      >
                      > Wanna hear my pet shooting peeve? It's elevating the muskets. To me that
                      > just makes the unburnt powder and other residue travel farther, thereby
                      > *increasing* the likelyhood of ending up in someone's eye. Seems better to
                      > shoot level or even slightly depressed, which also looks a damn sight
                      > better. But this has been decreed by my F&I governing body, and so I obey.
                      > Perhaps you all ignore this convention? My relative newness showing
                      > again.
                      >
                      > BTW, I wonder what cavalrymen think of us elevating our muskets, right into
                      > line with their faces. Chris F.?
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Michael
                      >
                      > Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
                      > Voice: (507) 285-7585 Fax: (507) 280-5568
                      > ------------------------------
                      > "Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> Share the wealth!
                      > http://www.ONElist.com
                      > Tell a friend about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
                      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of
                      THOUSANDS of square m
                      Re-Elevation or depression of weapons re cavalry. If cavalry are at a
                      range where they can catch some powder or such common sense would dictate
                      depressing the barrel or not firing at all, until safe to do so.
                    • nathanheald@webtv.net
                      I am not new to the list. I often read but rarely make a comment. So here goes. Regarding the issue of umbrella groups, I think that because it has been
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 1, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I am not new to the list. I often read but rarely make a comment. So here goes.
                        Regarding the issue of umbrella groups, I think that because it has been brought up, there is a need to more clearly define what 1812 interpretation is to be at events and seek some manner of assuring that interpretation gets enforced. In some ways, poor historic interpretation for the public is a form of censorship. By allowing certain participants to be a part of an event who are a far cry from what the event is about is doing a version of revisionist history. It is fostering an atmosphere to the public that this was part of the norm when it was certainly not.

                        How is this to be enforced and who will do it is disturbing. It is an inherent flaw. It is much easier for the military to interpret authenticity because they have the manuals, the rules and regulations of what was to be enforced. Take the recruiting regulations of the U.S. Infantry -- it clearly states the officer was to be sure only "men" were to be recruited who met certain conditions.
                        But when it comes to civilian participants, who will be the authenticity police? I wore a Quaker bonnet last fall to Mississinewa. A woman participant who is deemed an "authority" on women's clothing of this era claimed that didn't exist and was out of place. HELLO! Quaker women in Indiana Territory were more common than those butterflies in their polyester velvet spencers. So if this so-called authentic person is pointing fingers at those with authentic garb and saying it is not, who is to be believed? She can weed me off the site. If I were doing an authentic 1812 camp follower with a jumper style petticoat and an American version of a short gown (which is high waisted and shorter than a British or Canadian one) but the authenticity police deemed F & I style clothing of petticoats and shortgowns and chemises showing was correct (which often happens at 1812 events) then the real authentics are pushed out, censored, and revisionist interpretation reigns. I find that all very vexing. Civilians do not have the set military rules to abide by.
                        I bring up one other point here. And that has to do with cross gender interpretation of roles. I now don my steel-plated britches for this one. I used to be a 17th Light Dragoon in the umbrella organzation NWTA which allowed females to portray men (-- in some groups within the organization). I did pretty well, even getting yelled at by a woman participant for being in the ladies' bathroom. I had to open my military blouse to prove my gender so I could stay and do my business. I no longer do that. I tried it for about two years. I learned discipline, drill, how to fire a musket, and I cherish my Brown Bess. BUT today, I realize I had no business doing that role. I was misinforming the public who could tell I was female. I was doing a disservice to the public and for me, I was censoring true historic interpretation. Very few women were soldiers in the Rev War, and there were none I am aware of in the British Army.
                        My last stint in semi-male dress was at Prairie du Chein in 1995 when there were not enough Americans in the blockhouse to fire back at the British forces. I was asked by the overall American commander to don a 25th Infantry roundabout and forage cap over my washerwoman clothes and fire away. My unit commander asked me not to, but I did anyway, much to the potential demise of my relationship with him. Very dumb thing to do on my part. But it was wrong and were I asked to do that today, I would decline. What my responsibility as a female is to interpret the female roles of that era --the living past of those long dead, NOT to impose modern views upon the past. And men should not be donning women's gowns but interpreting men's roles. The cross gender thing was present in 1812, but hidden which is where it should be in 2001 as we interpret that time period. Our unit does allow women to fire muskets and pistols at blockhouse defense demonstrations. We are taught how to use the weapons safely and are controlled in our firing. We do this to interpret military and frontier dependents. So I still get to fire my musket once in awhile but in my proper role. And I don't have a problem with that.
                        So in regards to umbrella groups -- we must be very clear about what we want done. Clear about our expectations and goals are to be. We don't have units that help females interpret their roles the way the military does. Women are left on their own to by hook or crook come up with their own idea of what women should be. The easy way out is to wear F & I or Rev War camp follower clothing. The more difficult path is to research. We need to ask ourselves if an umbrella group would help women in their roles or only put the emphasis on men.
                        One last thing -- is that these problems can be addressed in by-laws of an organization with the help of a lawyer. If the Boy Scouts can decide how they will be run, so too can 1812 groups on either side of the border. Gender roles can be clearly defined if they are spelled out right from the git-go by event organizers or by unit organizations. Sally Bennett, 1st U.S. Infantry/Missouri Rangers
                      • Dave & Monica Bosse
                        I am sorry that someone asked you to put on a Roundabout and take the Block house. I am glad to say I was not there for that and I would have walked if that
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 1, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I am sorry that someone asked you to put on a Roundabout and take the Block house. I am glad to say I was not there for that and I would have walked if that happed. Sitting in camp going "yesh" would have been more fun. I still believe the Orginizers should make the desions and, we should back them. The Civillians could also send in photos to see if they pass muster.

                          Dave Bosse
                          25th US



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Kevin Windsor
                          Dave, I think you re missing Sally s point here. What she is saying is that you can send a picture in great, but some self proclaimed expert who can t tell a
                          Message 12 of 12 , Apr 1, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dave, I think you're missing Sally's point here. What she is saying is that you can send a picture in great, but some self proclaimed expert who can't tell a shift from a sh**ter is going to say "Not they would never have worn that. They always wear this..." (how many times have we heard that!) and not let her in. Even though she has possible done 25 years of research
                            on this has a Ph.D in historic costuming, some yahoo who thinks they are be all and end all still says no.

                            I don't think this group should deal with authenticity just safety!

                            Dave & Monica Bosse wrote:

                            > I still believe the Orginizers should make the desions and, we should back them. The Civillians could also send in photos to see if they pass muster.
                            >
                            > Dave Bosse
                            > 25th US
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.