| Author |
Message |
|
Michael Eging
|
 Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Jean,
20th century wars featured civilian casualties on a scale, and in a proportion to military ones, that would boggle the minds of any medieval military man. Out of world population of 2.3 billion c. 1940, modern tallies now estimate the deaths in the 2nd World War at ~72 million - that's 3% of the planet's population! Civilian casualties here are of a completely different magnitude than those of the medieval world. |
Of course, but very few were killed fighting hand to hand. The 20th century had more institutional murder, but the Medieval period had considerably more chaos. The context of this discussion was about how much exposure civilians had to hand to hand combat then versus now. Yes millions of civilians were killed during WW II, but there is little to no impact on martial arts skills from being carpet bombed. Or from being rounded up and shot.
In the Medieval period there were rather immensely more raids, small battles, sieges, piracy, etc. etc. We have street crime, we have huge apocalyptic wars, so did they. But we don't have a lot of the above, per my earlier posts, Baltimore hasn't invaded Pittsburgh recently, pirates have not sacked towns along the Gulf Coast any time i can remember.
J |
I have to agree with Jean. Different type of conflict. Less mass weapons, or weapons of such descructive potential (even rapid fire firearms!!). But you cannot argue that this was not a time of conflict. The entire Holy Roman Empire experience (and its impact on France, Italy, Austria, Poland, Lithuania, etc. etc. ) can't be whitewashed away. National states in continental Europe struggled to emerge from this very period of time due to tensions, conflicts, struggles for power, local squabbles that central powers could not put down, adventures in Northern Italy, etc. etc. etc.). German and Nothern Italian masters were not products in isolation of this time.
I can agree that not every master marched off to war. But I can't agree with overly broad generalizations and divorcing this set of skills from the martial intent of the age. Certainly, what that meant changed between 1350 and 1650. And I think masters, those that Fiore may have respected, were very connected with the martial roots, the use in conflict, etc. So, for me, that is what I look toward in my training, knowing that I may never gain that level of understanding. 
All the best,
Mike
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
  |
 |
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Michael & Jean,
I suspect I'm not getting to my point correctly. And I suspect we got a bit side-tracked by death tallies (my bad too!). Let me try again...please bear with me. 
The fencing master of, say, the 15th c. isn't teaching the average local potential victim. His clientele are generally from the nobles and the knightly class (sometimes different beasts in Germany at this time). And while not all of their concerns are related to the duel per se, it is the omnipresent knightly feud that threatens life and limb, even out of harness (as I mentioned when citing Matt Galas' SFI post).
But just because that class had a better chance of having to fend off rivals/attackers, doesn't mean the fencing master himself ever killed. We know how the Marxbruder tested master candidates, and the criteria had nothing whatever to coming up with a roster of those they'd killed or injured in self-defense.
The crux of the "no one can be a master today" is that of a level of urgency that we don't have. That just doesn't hold water: there were masters of the longsword in Meyer's time, and in Sutor's after him. No one was killing anybody with that weapon by that time, but it didn't prevent the creation of masters of the longsword.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
  |
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is starting to sound like a religious debate between creationists and evolutionists.
I think Hugh said it best when he spoke of humbler-than-thou chest thumping. I think that for some people it's also about "if I can't have it, no one should".
It doesn't matter if a modern master can't be as good as a master of old. Fiore himself, quoted in this very thread, stated the opinion that there was tremendous variation in the quality of medieval masters.
No matter what you guys think, we are going to have modern masters. Heck, we have some today...master is not a rank, and it's not just a title. It's a role. Someone who acts like a master is a master, whether he is as good as another master or not. The only question with modern masters is what you call them. I say, show a little respect for their hard work. All of us here have profited tremendously from it, whether directly or indirectly.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a question for anyone here who calls themself by the title of "master", or supports in principle the appellation of master. Would you make the assertion (or accept an assertion made by someone else) that your skill level in the various forms of armed and unarmed fighting are comparable to Liechtenauer's, or Talhoffer's, or Kal's, or Ringeck's, or Fiore's? Would you say that you're on par with them and would feel confident fighting against them earnestly, to the death, in Blossfechten, Harnischefechten, or (as applicable) in Rossfechten?
Would you make (or support someone who makes) these two assertions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | I have a question for anyone here who calls themself by the title of "master", or supports in principle the appellation of master. Would you make the assertion (or accept an assertion made by someone else) that your skill level in the various forms of armed and unarmed fighting are comparable to Liechtenauer's, or Talhoffer's, or Kal's, or Ringeck's, or Fiore's? Would you say that you're on par with them and would feel confident fighting against them earnestly, to the death, in Blossfechten, Harnischefechten, or (as applicable) in Rossfechten?
Would you make (or support someone who makes) these two assertions? |
That's a blatant straw man argument. The implication of your question is that to be a master one must compare oneself with Talhoffer et. al. when, in fact, arguments have clearly been made here showing that there were wide ranges of skill within the mastery of any medieval craft, including fencing.
A newly-promoted master goldsmith, barely hours away from being a mere journeyman after his masterwork was judged favorably, could hardly be compared with the premier goldsmith of France, and yet both are "master" goldsmiths. Are you honestly admitting, by asking your question, that you don't understand this argument?
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | This thread is starting to sound like a religious debate between creationists and evolutionists.
I think Hugh said it best when he spoke of humbler-than-thou chest thumping. I think that for some people it's also about "if I can't have it, no one should".
It doesn't matter if a modern master can't be as good as a master of old. Fiore himself, quoted in this very thread, stated the opinion that there was tremendous variation in the quality of medieval masters.
No matter what you guys think, we are going to have modern masters. Heck, we have some today...master is not a rank, and it's not just a title. It's a role. Someone who acts like a master is a master, whether he is as good as another master or not. The only question with modern masters is what you call them. I say, show a little respect for their hard work. All of us here have profited tremendously from it, whether directly or indirectly. |
Honestly, I cannot see where I have done any holier than thou through my chest thumping. I think trying to devalue what I am saying is a disservice. I have seen no proof to support you. Honestly, that is the point. Not in an arrogant sort of way. And I am okay with your view. It is just that. Your view. But I have seen huge stretches in analogies, unsupported theories, etc. on the other side of what I think is a narrower discussion. I disagree with you based on the original sources and the burden of proof is now passed to you. I cannot see all this worry in mastery when we are in the infancy of recreating a 400 year old art - note recreating with all - and I mean ALL our interpretations, looking for gaps in the record, testing, working, challenging, etc. It is not the original and we will have, maybe at some point, masters of this recreation. Not masters, necessarily based on a 400 year, long gone standard. The context was important. I will stand by that as did Fiore.
And I do respect their work. That is also a stretch if applied to me. Respect goes both ways.
All the best,
Mike
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hello Michael & Jean,
I suspect I'm not getting to my point correctly. And I suspect we got a bit side-tracked by death tallies (my bad too!). Let me try again...please bear with me.
The fencing master of, say, the 15th c. isn't teaching the average local potential victim. His clientele are generally from the nobles and the knightly class (sometimes different beasts in Germany at this time). And while not all of their concerns are related to the duel per se, it is the omnipresent knightly feud that threatens life and limb, even out of harness (as I mentioned when citing Matt Galas' SFI post).
But just because that class had a better chance of having to fend off rivals/attackers, doesn't mean the fencing master himself ever killed. We know how the Marxbruder tested master candidates, and the criteria had nothing whatever to coming up with a roster of those they'd killed or injured in self-defense.
The crux of the "no one can be a master today" is that of a level of urgency that we don't have. That just doesn't hold water: there were masters of the longsword in Meyer's time, and in Sutor's after him. No one was killing anybody with that weapon by that time, but it didn't prevent the creation of masters of the longsword.
All the best,
Christian |
Again, go back to the period and the people and circles they operated in. Meyer was valued by people who were involved in conflict and likely exchanged skills, information, understanding that improved his technique. I think you are missing that I am not trying to paint a black and white picture. And longsword was a foundational weapon, that likely taught principles for current application as it was phased out of martial/conflict use. And it was likely beginning to sportify. I don't think I ever made any of the assumptions in your response.
But certainly, as I said, the use, standards of quality, and the martial grounding changed. Martial intent was part and parcel of the experience, whether or not used in combat, conflict, judicial adjudication, etc. etc. etc. Note my previous posts. I turn the windmills over to you... thanks for the spirited, and for the most part, civil debate.
All the best,
Mike
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I respect many of the more prominent HEMA scholars, even some who call themselves masters, but I have no respect for people who claim that they have a unique ability to interpret fechtbuchs because they have some alleged quasi-mystical link to a non-existent lineage.
And I think the argument about the historical precedents are valid and worth discussing. They have modern ramifications, for example, on the position which many masters take who don't believe in sparring, or those who insist one can only train with live steel. I don't think anyone here s trying to argue that the middle ages was Mad Max, but I have read some people trying to imply that it was like Masterpiece Theater. I don't think it was either, but the truth is i don't think any of us know 100%. I mean, 30 years ago hardly anyone knew there was even such a thing as HEMA. I'm interested in learning more what life in this period was really like.
But the heat to light ratio is dropping here, I know some people are emotionally (and in some cases, financially) invested in this. I've learned something from this thread but I'm going to drop out now before it becomes another one of those endless quasi religious debates.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Joe Fults wrote: | | Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Do you think the books, the interpretations of today are going to hold up in say, ten years? J |
If nobody publishes countering opinions, I suspect they will.
If not by quality, then by sheer volume, and by lack of easily accessible conflicting material. |
Most of the interpretation books which came out 3 or 4 years ago, even the good ones, are now basically considered obsolete by most people I know, including in some cases by their own authors. I'd also say from my experience only about maybe one in five of the interpretations I've seen were any good.
But there are a couple which are quite useful even when I don't agree with everything in there, I'm glad they exist and I'm glad people are still writing them. I just think the understanding of HEMA is still evolving so rapidly that they don't hold up very well over time.
J |
Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, publication does tend to lend authority and credibility (with some exceptions). I just think that in the end, the published opinions, even some the authors later change their minds about, are the ones that are going to have lasting traction. Books, even bad ones, can after all outlive their authors.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
Last edited by Joe Fults on Thu 26 Jul, 2007 8:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | I have a question for anyone here who calls themself by the title of "master", or supports in principle the appellation of master. Would you make the assertion (or accept an assertion made by someone else) that your skill level in the various forms of armed and unarmed fighting are comparable to Liechtenauer's, or Talhoffer's, or Kal's, or Ringeck's, or Fiore's? Would you say that you're on par with them and would feel confident fighting against them earnestly, to the death, in Blossfechten, Harnischefechten, or (as applicable) in Rossfechten?
Would you make (or support someone who makes) these two assertions? |
How is that even relevant?
Does every holder of a PhD have to be as smart as Steven Hawking? Does every scientist have to be as accomplished as Albert Einstein? Does every major leage baseball player have to be as good as Babe Ruth?
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Craig Peters wrote: | I have a question for anyone here who calls themself by the title of "master", or supports in principle the appellation of master. Would you make the assertion (or accept an assertion made by someone else) that your skill level in the various forms of armed and unarmed fighting are comparable to Liechtenauer's, or Talhoffer's, or Kal's, or Ringeck's, or Fiore's? Would you say that you're on par with them and would feel confident fighting against them earnestly, to the death, in Blossfechten, Harnischefechten, or (as applicable) in Rossfechten?
Would you make (or support someone who makes) these two assertions? |
That's a blatant straw man argument. The implication of your question is that to be a master one must compare oneself with Talhoffer et. al. when, in fact, arguments have clearly been made here showing that there were wide ranges of skill within the mastery of any medieval craft, including fencing.
A newly-promoted master goldsmith, barely hours away from being a mere journeyman after his masterwork was judged favorably, could hardly be compared with the premier goldsmith of France, and yet both are "master" goldsmiths. Are you honestly admitting, by asking your question, that you don't understand this argument? |
I never said that there weren't masters of different degrees of skill. I even posted the names of multiple masters so that one wasn't forced to make a comparison against only one particular master. It is certain that not every one of the masters whom I mentioned was a skilled as the others. You seem to have forgotten this fact in your rush to accuse me of committing a straw man.
But let's not obsfucate the issue Hugh. I just want an answer to my question. You seem to imply that you acknowledge all of the masters I mentioned exceed the skill of so-called modern masters. Yet I gave you a list of five masters, all of whom would have had varying degress of skill and ability in different aspects of this art. So the fact that you imply that this is an unfair comparison, and therefore suggest that the historical masters I mentioned are better than any modern practitioner, and the fact that you have argued that there are different degrees of skill amongst masters, which would certainly hold true for the five I posted, seems to support my argument that no modern person has an equivalent skill level appropriate for the designation of the title of master.
So, would you support someone who made these claims Hugh? And what would you say if they argued they could take one of the five (or even say Peter von Danzig, the author of the Doebringer ms, or Fillipo Vadi) in blossfechten, harnischefechten or rossfechten?
Edit: And let's add for clarification: your argument is that the historical masters didn't have extraordinary or "superhuman" (or however you want to phrase it) abilities. If this is the case, a master who has had more experience shouldn't automatically be able to trounce a new master in a fight. Both have achieved the status of master, after all, so both must have significant skill at fighting. Unless, of course, you're willing to argue that a master doesn't need significant skill at fighting...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | I never said that there weren't masters of different degrees of skill. I even posted the names of multiple masters so that one wasn't forced to make a comparison against only one particular master. It is certain that not every one of the masters whom I mentioned was a skilled as the others. You seem to have forgotten this fact in your rush to accuse me of committing a straw man. |
No I didn't, I merely pointed out the *obvious* flaw in the question you asked..
| Quote: | | But let's not obsfucate the issue Hugh. I just want an answer to my question. You seem to imply that you acknowledge all of the masters I mentioned exceed the skill of so-called modern masters. Yet I gave you a list of five masters, all of whom would have had varying degress of skill and ability in different aspects of this art. So the fact that you imply that this is an unfair comparison, and therefore suggest that the historical masters I mentioned are better than any modern practitioner, and the fact that you have argued that there are different degrees of skill amongst masters, which would certainly hold true for the five I posted, seems to support my argument that no modern person has an equivalent skill level appropriate for the designation of the title of master. |
Actually, I didn't accept the premise you argue at all; for all I know, none of the men you listed could fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I didn't get into a debate about their relative skill to avoid clouding the issue, and, instead, simply pointed out the fallacy of your *implication*--much easier to do, and far more meaningful.
| Quote: | | So, would you support someone who made these claims Hugh? And what would you say if they argued they could take one of the five (or even say Peter von Danzig, the author of the Doebringer ms, or Fillipo Vadi) in blossfechten, harnischefechten or rossfechten? |
No, I wouldn't support such claims because no one knows how good any of them were. For all I know they were awful, like many so-called martial arts experts today: Men who can talk a good game, but never prove it. It's equally likely they were superb martial artists, far beyond the norm. We don't know, so such speculation is meaningless, and, as you clearly intended, obfuscatory.
| Quote: | | Edit: And let's add for clarification: your argument is that the historical masters didn't have extraordinary or "superhuman" (or however you want to phrase it) abilities. If this is the case, a master who has had more experience shouldn't automatically be able to trounce a new master in a fight. Both have achieved the status of master, after all, so both must have significant skill at fighting. Unless, of course, you're willing to argue that a master doesn't need significant skill at fighting... |
Craig, please go back and carefully re-read my arguments, then come back and we'll discuss this again, OK?
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray McCullough
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a question.
Were all the past masters tested, proved and reckognized by other masters as having reached a high level of skill to become a master?
" The Lord is my strength and my shield, my heart trusteth in Him and I am helped.." Psalms 28:7
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | I respect many of the more prominent HEMA scholars, even some who call themselves masters, but I have no respect for people who claim that they have a unique ability to interpret fechtbuchs because they have some alleged quasi-mystical link to a non-existent lineage. |
Hi Jean - please understand that if we're both talking about the same individual, he is not someone I respect. If there's ambiguity about who this person is, please feel free to PM for confirmation.
| Quote: | | But the heat to light ratio is dropping here, I know some people are emotionally (and in some cases, financially) invested in this. I've learned something from this thread but I'm going to drop out now before it becomes another one of those endless quasi religious debate. |
Ok, I feel I must address this, because as far as I know, I'm the only published author on this thread, so I must assume your remarks are directed at me. I've been noting more and more of these comments directed towards me from people who believe I make a 'living' off my books and seminars. I don't - not even close.
My job is programming contractor. I consult at at scientific instrumentation company, nearly full-time, writing programs for analytical instruments, writing documentation, and qualifying data. My work in the WMA field accounts for less than 5% of my yearly income, and when I take a weekend + 2 days of travel to do a seminar, I operate at a loss of lucrative consulting hours - the best I do these days is break even. As far as the books go, this is a niche market; I couldn't begin to make a living on even all three books. If you seriously think this is something other than a labor of love, you do me a grave and unjust disservice.
Drop out if you wish, but please refrain from casting aspersions on my character regarding money as a motivator.
Sincerely,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Ray!
| Ray McCullough wrote: | I have a question.
Were all the past masters tested, proved and reckognized by other masters as having reached a high level of skill to become a master? |
What documentation from the German guilds that survives suggests that several masters would observe a master candidate "play a prize", that is, bout with others to demonstrate his level of skill. Presumeably (but we can't confirm this), he would be questioned on terminology, teaching methodology, etc. by these same masters.
Was this the only way to become or be a master? Probably not. Likely, some masters simply advertised their skills and brought in students, attaining a reputation by word of mouth. But again, it's hard to know for sure with so little surviving information.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Was this the only way to become or be a master? Probably not. Likely, some masters simply advertised their skills and brought in students, attaining a reputation by word of mouth. But again, it's hard to know for sure with so little surviving information. |
I know I always take people for task for going with "gut instinct", and I would never push a conclusion arrived at by instinct in a serious way, but I have to say that just from knowing people and from studying history my gut feeling--educated instinct, if you'll allow me--is that you're spot on. This was a lousy time for records, and anyone could claim to be almost anything he wanted within certain parameters as long as he could back his play in some fashion.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Jul, 2007 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | [My job is programming contractor. I consult at at scientific instrumentation company, nearly full-time, writing programs for analytical instruments, writing documentation, and qualifying data. My work in the WMA field accounts for less than 5% of my yearly income, and when I take a weekend + 2 days of travel to do a seminar, I operate at a loss of lucrative consulting hours - the best I do these days is break even. As far as the books go, this is a niche market; I couldn't begin to make a living on even all three books. If you seriously think this is something other than a labor of love, you do me a grave and unjust disservice.
Drop out if you wish, but please refrain from casting aspersions on my character regarding money as a motivator. |
Moreover, Christian has *never*, to my reasonably certain knowledge, claimed the title of master.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Jul, 2007 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
Ok, I feel I must address this, because as far as I know, I'm the only published author on this thread, so I must assume your remarks are directed at me. |
Christian,
You are incorrect. I know this thread grew rather precipitously, but if you go back through my posts you will notice a couple of times I specifically excluded you from some of my remarks. My group has four copies of your second longsword book and we find it quite useful. Furthermore, while you and I have disagreed online in the past, I've always found you polite and rational, something I can't say for some people I've run into on some other forums.
And I don't think you are the only published author in this thread. Not even the only one who published a book in HEMA You may note however that I also wrote a disclaimer about other folks in this thread. There are a lot of schools around the world these days, and some HEMA 'masters' who are very much in it for the money, at least partially, that is just a fact. That doesn't mean everyone who has a school or who publishes a book is a scam artist, I never said that. And I know you don't call yourself a 'Master'
I hope that clears it up, I really didn't want to post to this thread again but I needed to straighten that out. Hopefully in the future you'll have a better sense of where I'm coming from should this sort of thing come up again.
J
P.S. I also work as a software developer and I've also published a book or two in a niche market so I can relate....
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Jul, 2007 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh and Craig,
Take it down a notch. Stop letting yourselves be baited by the other. Behave in a more civil way. Thank you.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Jul, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: Straw men |
|
|
It's interesting that "straw man argument" is the new buzzphrase of these threads. This term first came up in another battle-of-the-WMA-communities thread and now is everyone's favorite term.
If people are using this rhetorical tactic (and I believe some are), it's not appreciated. To try to bait people or twist their words or trap them with very leading statements is not clean, honest discussion. It's a tactic to try to goad your opponent into saying something you can use against them.
Be straightforward and leave the attempts at baiting out of your discussions. Say what you need to say and let the other person respond. To try to use these "straw man" kind of arguments is ungentlemanly and unbecoming, as well as unwelcome here.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
Last edited by Chad Arnow on Fri 27 Jul, 2007 12:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic