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

Re: "reenactors."

Expand Messages
  • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
    In a message dated 12/2/1999 3:04:27 PM Central Standard Time, sgtwarnr@idirect.ca writes: Craig, Yes indeed it is a serious inquiry. I have always believed
    Message 1 of 22 , Dec 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 12/2/1999 3:04:27 PM Central Standard Time,
      sgtwarnr@... writes:

      Craig,
      Yes indeed it is a serious inquiry. I have always believed that it is by
      examining the past that we learn. As I said in initially trying to maintain
      first person I allowed my buttons to be pushed and am thoroughly ashamed of
      exploding in the way I did. It is something that I think should be avoided at
      all cost and in this vein I will answer the very logical points that you put.

      << Regardless of the dress of the site
      representative, the re-enactor must adhere to the rules, so that if a safety
      issue was in need of imminent discussion the site rep. doesn't have to go
      and change his/her clothes to put something straight.>>

      Agreed, and for this reason the rules should be spelled out clearly to all
      who have command positions. One cannot assume that all the rules will be
      naturally known, however I think it is a good idea to have the controlling
      site person in modern clothes so that they can interact without looking
      anachronistic. They could also use the correct uniform and take command,
      however if command is delegated it should only be delegated to a person
      trusted by the site, and that person must be fully briefed.


      << There is inherent
      danger in making the communication between site and re-enactor adhere to a
      "role playing" relationship. If a site supervisor is a woman who is of the
      opinion that women should represent women and does so herself,( to add to
      the visual mozaic of the event), what impression would she have to be doing
      to be heeded by say a Major General? >>

      I think here it is a matter of degrees. The person appointed to command is
      (or should be made aware of) who is in charge and that person should have the
      trust to be able to communicate in a period way. In the example you give
      above the female in charge cold drop a curtsy, say "If you will pardon me
      sir, it is of great importance that I speak to you in private." This would
      give the CO the opportunity of speaking quietly and being privately informed
      of the problem so that he can correct it. If he stupidly ignores her it could
      escalate but if the CO has been chosen by the site I cannot see him doing
      this.

      If on the other hand the female stalks across the paradeground screaming at
      the top of her voice at the supposed commander of the fort "WHAT THE HELL DO
      YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING?!!" Especially if he does not know that anything
      wrong has happened, what is he to do?

      Which is worse? To allow himself to be berated by someone the public can see
      is clearly his social inferior?
      To shout back and say something like "HOW DARE YOU SPEAK TO ME IN THAT
      MANNER? I WILL SEE YOU IN MY OFFICE THIS MINUET!" (thus giving an opportunity
      for the two to discuss the problem in private)

      I am of the opinion that this is a problem that should never happen but if it
      does I think that some sort of universally accepted guidelines would be an
      advantage.

      Cheers

      Tim
    • Larry Lozon
      Re: an E from: Craig Williams If a site supervisor is a woman who is of the opinion that women should represent women and does so
      Message 2 of 22 , Dec 2, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Re: an "E" from: "Craig Williams" <sgtwarnr@...>
        If a site supervisor is a woman who is of the opinion that
        women should represent women and does so herself,
        ( to add to the visual mozaic of the event), what
        impression would she have to be doing to be heeded
        by say a Major General?
        ...................................................

        This subject was brought up at a meeting
        at an historical site where a lady is in fact
        the Supervisor of the site.

        It was recommended that the lady do the
        oppression of the commanding officer's
        wife. And, wear a spencer made of red
        superfine and having the facings and
        buttons of the Regiment.

        In this capacity she would be respected as
        the Commander's wife and would show
        some military authority as well.

        Larry
      • NINETY3RD@xxx.xxx
        ... Was that a Freudian slip there Larry? *O*-ppression.....? ;-) B
        Message 3 of 22 , Dec 3, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 02/12/1999 3:27:21 PM, lalozon@... writes:

          >It was recommended that the lady do the
          >
          >oppression of the commanding officer's
          >
          >wife.

          Was that a Freudian slip there Larry?
          *O*-ppression.....?

          ;-)

          B
        • Bateman, Andrew
          Benton Jennings wrote: Was that a Freudian slip there Larry? *O*-ppression.....? ;-) B Andrew writes: Is there an echo in this room?
          Message 4 of 22 , Dec 3, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Benton Jennings wrote:

            Was that a Freudian slip there Larry?
            *O*-ppression.....?

            ;-)

            B

            Andrew writes:

            Is there an echo in this room?
          • NINETY3RD@xxx.xxx
            ... Echo? What Echo? Echo? What Echo? B
            Message 5 of 22 , Dec 3, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 03/12/1999 8:23:32 AM, abateman@... writes:

              >From: "Bateman, Andrew" <abateman@...>
              >
              >
              >
              >Benton Jennings wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              >Was that a Freudian slip there Larry?
              >
              >*O*-ppression.....?
              >
              >
              >
              >;-)
              >
              >
              >
              >B
              >
              >
              >
              >Andrew writes:
              >
              >
              >
              >Is there an echo in this room?

              Echo?

              What Echo?

              Echo?

              What Echo?

              B
            • Craig Williams
              -- ... Two. Me and one to hold my penis..MY MOTHER!...MY LADDER!!!
              Message 6 of 22 , Dec 3, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                --
                >>
                >>
                >>Was that a Freudian slip there Larry?
                >>
                >>*O*-ppression.....?
                >>
                >>How many Freudian phyciatrists does it take to change a lightbulb.........





                Two.



                Me and one to hold my penis..MY MOTHER!...MY LADDER!!!
                >>
                >>Oh grin..Craig
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
              • Craig Williams
                Tim, some thoughts on your last missive; for this reason the rules should be spelled out clearly to all who have command positions. You mean sorta like a12
                Message 7 of 22 , Dec 3, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tim, some thoughts on your last missive;

                  "for this reason the rules should be spelled out clearly to all who have
                  command positions. "

                  You mean sorta like a12 page safety guide that includes a schedule that is
                  distributed to all participants if not by mail before hand, then during
                  registration the night before an event?

                  "it is a good idea to have the controlling site person in modern clothes so
                  that they can interact without looking anachronistic."

                  I'm sorry,aren't modern clothes anacronistic?Kidding aside, a site
                  representative should be able to be seen in and around the re-enactors and
                  not be obvious. This way visitors photos are not ruined, and the ambiance
                  can be maintained as much as possible. If it becomes neccessary for a site
                  supervisor to step out of character to address a problem, then it is
                  incumbent on the re-enactors to assist the site rep in rectifying any
                  difficulties. Once the problem has been dealt with then everyone can go
                  back
                  into character. When I was the safety co-ordinator of the Battle of
                  Ridgeway
                  the battle designer and myself were able to drift between both sides
                  unobtrusively because we dressed as period undertakers. I firmly believe
                  that it is up to the discretion of the event co-ordinator what he/she wears
                  to their own party (within historical context), without having to bend over
                  backwards to accomodate the re-enactors.

                  "They could also use the correct uniform and take command",
                  If they know how. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who figures
                  they can command because they've read A book and spent a little or even a
                  lot of money on a swishy bit of schmatta from Whitehall. You know the type.

                  "if command is delegated it should only be delegated to a person
                  trusted by the site, and that person must be fully briefed."

                  Agreed, like at a scheduled meeting prior to the safety meeting which of
                  course would be outlined in the safety/schedule handed out before the event.

                  "The person appointed to command is (or should be made aware of) who is in
                  charge" That would be at the briefing.

                  " and that person should have the trust to be able to communicate in a
                  period way. In the example you give above the female in charge could drop a
                  curtsy, say "If you will pardon me sir, it is of great importance that I
                  speak to you in private."
                  I certainly hope that her next sentence once cloistered behind closed doors
                  is not ,"Your hat is on fire ". This doesn't work in an emergency, Tim.


                  "female stalks across the paradeground screaming at the top of her voice at
                  the supposed commander of the fort "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE
                  DOING?!!"

                  Depending on what she was yelling about, she may be justified . If the
                  re-enactor commander has been supplied with the said documents mentioned
                  before, this problem isn't likely to arise,so I thinks it's moot.

                  I am in total agreement with you when you say that ,"this is a problem
                  that should never happen ", and barring an international conference of
                  historical site supervisors holding a summit on "how to be of complete
                  service to a re-enactor", I think using a little common (sorry I used the
                  "C" word) sense is in order.



                  Just a few thoughts...
                  Craig

                  "God is on the side of the big battalions",Voltaire
                  "No foolin'." Craig Williams
                • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
                  Dear Craig, Obviously we are on the same page. A few other thoughts on your post though.
                  Message 8 of 22 , Dec 4, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Craig,

                    Obviously we are on the same page. A few other thoughts on your post though.

                    <<"for this reason the rules should be spelled out clearly to all who have
                    command positions. "

                    You mean sorta like a12 page safety guide that includes a schedule that is
                    distributed to all participants if not by mail before hand, then during
                    registration the night before an event?>>

                    No, I mean that if a specific activity is not allowed at a particular time
                    while being allowed at others this should be spelled out at the pre event
                    meeting, not assumed that the non park person in charge happens to be fully
                    conversant with the variations in the rules.

                    <<"it is a good idea to have the controlling site person in modern clothes so
                    that they can interact without looking anachronistic."

                    I'm sorry,aren't modern clothes anacronistic?Kidding aside, a site
                    representative should be able to be seen in and around the re-enactors and
                    not be obvious. This way visitors photos are not ruined, and the ambiance
                    can be maintained as much as possible. If it becomes neccessary for a site
                    supervisor to step out of character to address a problem, then it is
                    incumbent on the re-enactors to assist the site rep in rectifying any
                    difficulties.>>

                    No, I mean that in an emergency someone in modern dress can jump in and do
                    what they like without affecting the first person interactions. For any
                    member of the public who sees someone other than supposed commander (private,
                    washerwoman etc.) obviously exercising command at a crucial time the
                    'theatrical' illusion is gone fore the weekend. As members of the public know
                    in which age they live a 'modern' person would not have this effect.
                    It is like having a problem at the theater, Its one thing to have the manager
                    walk on stage and correct a problem after which the action of the play can go
                    on. It would somewhat spoil the effect to have a member of the cast do it.
                    Its the difference between being performer or 'front of house'.

                    I think in this same context if park people choose to dress up the 'how' they
                    go in and out of character is very important. Their attitude in this will
                    very much determine the amount of co-operation they get. You catch more fly's
                    with honey than vinegar.

                    <>

                    Quite, the problem is usually not what anyone wears but how they behave while
                    wearing it.

                    <<the female in charge could drop a
                    curtsy, say "If you will pardon me sir, it is of great importance that I
                    speak to you in private."
                    I certainly hope that her next sentence once cloistered behind closed doors
                    is not ,"Your hat is on fire ". This doesn't work in an emergency, Tim.>>

                    That depends on the emergency, There are many period ways of getting
                    someone's attention but if of course we are speaking of a risk to life and
                    limb then all bets are off. If on the other hand it is a breech of park rule
                    that someone was not informed of I think the belligerent attitude it
                    inexcusable. (A particular incident at Chalmette comes to mind).

                    I think part of the large problem here, particularly for battles, comes from
                    sites where individuals do not (and do not have the skill to) command on the
                    field but want to dictate how the minutia if the battle should go. I have
                    always though that we who are in 'harms way' should control the action
                    because it is literally our backsides that are out there. The few bad
                    incident arise when (as the Chalmette incident of many years ago) someone
                    takes the attitude that 'this is MY site and you will do what I say whenever
                    I say it and if you break a rule, even if I haven't bothered to tell you
                    about it, I am hauling you on the carpet in front of everybody'.

                    PS That particular 'lady' is no longer at Chalmette.

                    Cheers

                    Tim
                  • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
                    As it got sniped in my original reply somehow Craig wrote:- I firmly believe that it is up to the discretion of the event co-ordinator what he/she wears to
                    Message 9 of 22 , Dec 4, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      As it got sniped in my original reply somehow

                      Craig wrote:-

                      I firmly believe
                      that it is up to the discretion of the event co-ordinator what he/she wears
                      to their own party (within historical context), without having to bend over
                      backwards to accomodate the re-enactors.

                      I replied:-

                      Quite, the problem is usually not what anyone wears but how they behave while
                      wearing it.

                      Cheers

                      Tim
                    • Craig Williams
                      Tim, in response Obviously we are on the same page. Nope. if a specific activity is not allowed at a particular time while being allowed at others this
                      Message 10 of 22 , Dec 8, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tim, in response

                        "Obviously we are on the same page. "

                        Nope.

                        "if a specific activity is not allowed at a particular time while being
                        allowed at others this should be spelled out at the pre event meeting, not
                        assumed that the non park person in charge happens to be fully conversant
                        with the variations in the rules."
                        Tim this is what a schedule is for, any major deviation should be cleared,
                        no exceptions.
                        >
                        ><<"it is a good idea to have the controlling site person in modern clothes
                        so
                        >that they can interact without looking anachronistic."
                        >
                        >I'm sorry,aren't modern clothes anacronistic?Kidding aside, a site
                        >representative should be able to be seen in and around the re-enactors and
                        >not be obvious. This way visitors photos are not ruined, and the ambiance
                        >can be maintained as much as possible. If it becomes neccessary for a site
                        >supervisor to step out of character to address a problem, then it is
                        >incumbent on the re-enactors to assist the site rep in rectifying any
                        >difficulties.>>
                        >
                        >No, I mean that in an emergency someone in modern dress can jump in and do
                        >what they like without affecting the first person interactions. For any
                        >member of the public who sees someone other than supposed commander
                        (private,
                        >washerwoman etc.) obviously exercising command at a crucial time the
                        >'theatrical' illusion is gone fore the weekend. As members of the public
                        know
                        >in which age they live a 'modern' person would not have this effect.
                        >It is like having a problem at the theater, Its one thing to have the
                        manager
                        >walk on stage and correct a problem after which the action of the play can
                        go
                        >on. It would somewhat spoil the effect to have a member of the cast do it.
                        >Its the difference between being performer or 'front of house'.
                        >
                        >I think in this same context if park people choose to dress up the 'how'
                        they
                        >go in and out of character is very important. Their attitude in this will
                        >very much determine the amount of co-operation they get. You catch more
                        fly's
                        >with honey than vinegar.
                        >
                        ><>
                        >
                        >Quite, the problem is usually not what anyone wears but how they behave
                        while
                        >wearing it.
                        >
                        ><<the female in charge could drop a
                        >curtsy, say "If you will pardon me sir, it is of great importance that I
                        >speak to you in private."
                        >I certainly hope that her next sentence once cloistered behind closed doors
                        >is not ,"Your hat is on fire ". This doesn't work in an emergency, Tim.>>
                        >
                        >That depends on the emergency, There are many period ways of getting
                        >someone's attention but if of course we are speaking of a risk to life and
                        >limb then all bets are off. If on the other hand it is a breech of park
                        rule
                        >that someone was not informed of I think the belligerent attitude it
                        >inexcusable. (A particular incident at Chalmette comes to mind).
                        >
                        >I think part of the large problem here, particularly for battles, comes
                        from
                        >sites where individuals do not (and do not have the skill to) command on
                        the
                        >field but want to dictate how the minutia if the battle should go. I have
                        >always though that we who are in 'harms way' should control the action
                        >because it is literally our backsides that are out there. The few bad
                        >incident arise when (as the Chalmette incident of many years ago) someone
                        >takes the attitude that 'this is MY site and you will do what I say
                        whenever
                        >I say it and if you break a rule, even if I haven't bothered to tell you
                        >about it, I am hauling you on the carpet in front of everybody'.
                        >
                        >PS That particular 'lady' is no longer at Chalmette.
                        >
                        >Cheers
                        >
                        >Tim
                        >
                        >>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 miles...
                      • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                        In a message dated 12/8/1999 9:53:37 PM Central Standard Time, sgtwarnr@idirect.ca writes:
                        Message 11 of 22 , Dec 9, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 12/8/1999 9:53:37 PM Central Standard Time,
                          sgtwarnr@... writes:

                          << Tim, in response

                          "Obviously we are on the same page. "

                          Nope.

                          "if a specific activity is not allowed at a particular time while being
                          allowed at others this should be spelled out at the pre event meeting, not
                          assumed that the non park person in charge happens to be fully conversant
                          with the variations in the rules."
                          Tim this is what a schedule is for, any major deviation should be cleared,
                          no exceptions. >>

                          Er. Craig?
                          First you say 'Nope' meaning I assume we are NOT on the same page and then
                          make the statement above which seemingly agrees with what I have said.

                          I can see one potentially large difference in interpretation here in that one
                          could take your statement to read that any and all actions anticipated must
                          be cleared at a pre-event meeting. However you implication is that the entire
                          responsibility is on the re-enactment commander. If he is not aware of the
                          site rules, and the site neglects to inform him off the rules, it is still
                          his fault if he breaks them because it "should be cleared".


                          Leaving aside that I have NEVER attended a meeting where any site has gone
                          into anything like that detail I would say that there are two problems here.

                          1, It is impossible to think of all the eventualities that can happen in a
                          re-enactment or 1st person scenario in front of the public so there must be
                          some flexibility. Your statement about 'checking deviations' beforehand
                          assumes that an unplanned action is known to be a deviation from the rules
                          and can be anticipated. If it could be anticipated it would not be unplanned
                          (catch 22).

                          2, It is the SITES responsibility to state very clearly and unequivocally
                          what the no-no's are before the event. If the person is not given the
                          information he can hardly be expected to abide by the rules.

                          It is foolish for the site to make assumptions about what someone who does
                          not work there may or may not know about the rules. If the site were to
                          follow up their non decimation of such information by publicly chastising an
                          individual problems will ensue. Particularly if no danger is inherent in the
                          action.

                          I am glad that we are on the same page with the rest of (and indeed the bulk
                          of) my post.

                          Cheers

                          Tim
                        • David_Webb@xxx.xx.xx
                          This is a very interesting discussion, and while a conference is not needed, it might be useful for reenactors and site managers to get together to exchange
                          Message 12 of 22 , Dec 9, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            This is a very interesting discussion, and while a conference is not needed, it
                            might be useful for reenactors and site managers to get together to exchange
                            views on safety, direction and communication at events.
                            I think that for big events, one should try to have emergency staff in modern
                            clothing, identified. We hire, for a ridiculously tiny honorarium, St John's
                            ambulance. We also have crowd control staff in modern dress, on the lines, and
                            an emergency plan. Our key first aider has a walkie-talky so that they know
                            what is going on in the battle, and a cell phone so they can call 911 if an
                            emergency is requiered.
                            Site staff in period costume are on the field also, and they are there to
                            ensure safety, but also to help unit commanders with communications, etc. If
                            the site does not have a person or people on the field for a demonstration, then
                            things can go wrong, and even get dangerous, and usually the site person then
                            has the option of going out in modern dress to shut things down, or have some
                            sort of tissy fit in public, or just ignore dangerous stuff.
                            I was a safety officer at a 7 Years War Event at Louisbourg this year. The
                            safety officers wore armbands, attended meetings, and were on the field with the
                            staff during the battles. This worked out very well, since we could discuss
                            things before they went wrong. For example, the Brit commander and I together
                            decided how close we could safely move troops on a flank nearest the crowd. The
                            site ropelines were no longer relevant because of a strong wind blowing from us
                            onto the crowd, and we had to respond to this wind change to avoid flashing or
                            smoking out the audience. With an unobtrusive walkie talky, the opposing
                            commanders could cue phases of the planned scenerio, and even communicate if
                            they chose.
                            We had one safety problem. A planned failed assault went wrong when one
                            participant did not die, but chose to attack the Fortress of Louisbourg and its
                            French defenders single handed. I guess the bushido code lives on in New
                            England. The difficulty was compounded when two Frenchmen obligingly shot him
                            at point blank range. A safety officer was there and tried to stop this silly
                            and dangerous charge, and also to deal with the two idjits who really made
                            things worse by firing at this guy. Since he was on the field in kit, this
                            problem was dealt with, and the battle was not interupted. With no one on the
                            field, a site person might have gone out in modern clothes to shut things down.
                            What was good about this episode was that the 3 stooges were identified, and the
                            site worked with the event and unit commanders to deal with the problem, and the
                            unit commanders took appropriate disciplinary action. With no costumed staff
                            on the field, a battle between the site and the unit or field commanders would
                            very possibly resulted.
                            At the same event, there were some site guard units who really were not very
                            experienced in tactical demos. They actually frightened some of the reenactors,
                            and instead of banning the guard units, or having participants walk from the
                            event, safety officers were placed to monitor and advise the guard units as
                            their sole responsibility. This was done tactfully, and everyone was happy and
                            got to participate.
                            Finally, we had an unfortunate artillery commander who had his foot run over
                            by one of his 6 pounder guns. His group, and all the participants left the
                            field, and no one noticed his problem. I was on site as a safety person, and
                            because I was in kit, I was near enough to see that he was in distress. I was
                            able to get help, and save his nice officers boot by getting it off before his
                            foot became too swollen. With no one on the field in kit, it might have been
                            some time before he was noticed. I really do think it is useful to have staff
                            in period costume on the field, especially in big battles.
                            While reenactors and site managers all share responsibility and liability at
                            events, the host organization as property owner usually gets sued as the
                            primary target. As an employee or agent for Parks Canada, I am aware that the
                            deep pockets of my employer are on the line. So are the historic programmes at
                            Parks and Sites across Canada, and many could close down or be suspended if we
                            have a bad accident that frightens senior administrators and politicians. This
                            would also lead to stricter rules ( such as no opposed sides tacticals) and some
                            other organisations might follow our lead. Finally, in event of a bad
                            accident, especially involving negligence, it is only the site staff and
                            managers that will lose their jobs and blight their careers. Federal, State, or
                            Provincial labour laws usually apply, and criminal charges can result for
                            participants and hosts alike.
                            A number of reenactors ( or living historians, as opposed to dead ones) have
                            jobs in film, or as exotic dancers, or whatever, and could also be in a
                            difficult employment situation if they were directly involved in an event
                            accident. But it is the event safety officer at most historic sites, and the
                            site manager, whose jobs are really on the line. If my paycheck is on the line,
                            I get to call the shots at my site, and this includes deciding on hosting an
                            event or not. I do have a veto. I really must communicate with, work with, and
                            listen to the event participants, and especially the commanders, and treat them
                            with respect, and hope that my trust in them will be justified. If there is an
                            accident, all parties loose , all of us have liabilities and responsibilites,
                            and so all of us have the authority to act to stop dangerous activity.
                          • Craig Williams
                            David,. Bravo and well said! Craig
                            Message 13 of 22 , Dec 9, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              David,.
                              Bravo and well said!
                              Craig
                            • BritcomHMP@xxx.xxx
                              Good points all Dave, I suppose we can expect the odd loon in the ranks and certainly it behooves all officers and NOC s to watch out for these individuals and
                              Message 14 of 22 , Dec 9, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Good points all Dave, I suppose we can expect the odd loon in the ranks and
                                certainly it behooves all officers and NOC's to watch out for these
                                individuals and quell the spirit of 'bushido' or anything else contrary to
                                regulations and safety.
                                At Mississenewa this year I ordered all muskets checked for their half cock
                                with the rule that no muskets which did not have a working half cock were to
                                be allowed on the field whether or not they have a hammerstall attached
                                (everyone I am sure knows my opinion of THAT bit of frippery). No less than 3
                                muskets failed the test!

                                This is something I shall continue to enforce I can assure you.

                                Cheers

                                Tim
                              • Kevin Windsor
                                Dave. I have to wholeheartedly agree with what you said! I was at Louisbourg and I had an interesting position. I was doing a postgrad in Heritage
                                Message 15 of 22 , Dec 11, 1999
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dave. I have to wholeheartedly agree with what you said! I was at
                                  Louisbourg and I had an interesting position. I was doing a postgrad in
                                  Heritage Preservation and part of my job that weekend was to evaluate you!
                                  (not you specifically but the safety officers and other staff) I felt that
                                  all of the staff did an outstanding job!! I witnessed the single man
                                  storming the fort and the only reaction I got from the crowd was "hey look
                                  at that stupid guy!" I feel that if you were wearing modern clothes and
                                  ran out on to the field and chewed him out then the whole battle would have
                                  been ruined. The walkie talkies were also not very noticable except for
                                  one man and when a visitor questioned me about it I informed her that he
                                  was probably a safety officer making sure no one did anything stupid. This
                                  seemed very reasonable for her. I also had a chance to speak with some of
                                  the re-enactors that were there and they were glad that the young pretty
                                  boys had some extra people watching them. That made them feel safer! I
                                  must admit that I have not been following this a closely as I should but as
                                  a person who helps put on events I know it is my job on the line and since
                                  I get paid for doing something I love I don't want to loose that so you are
                                  right! Anything that will keep it safe and make sure I or my site doesn't
                                  get sued I will do. Be that having uniformed safety officers or
                                  plainclothes or modern dressed people or as at Louisbourg both doing
                                  different things. With uniformed on the field and modern off with the
                                  public (although when the public started buying and wearing those t-shirts
                                  it got hard to tell the difference) If the public sees someone who looks
                                  like they know what they are doing then they will go and see them. If they
                                  loose a child or something like that then they don't want to spend hours
                                  looking for an officer because all they see are people in red coats because
                                  they are panicking. I feel that both are really needed! Some for public
                                  and some for re-enactors each working together.

                                  These are only my two coins thrown in the fountain though!
                                  Kevin
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.