No subject

It would seem they had no regard for verisimilitude.  

For additional discussion on voussoirs, please see ... 

"Roman Aqueducts & the Arch"; 
http://www.civil.bcit.ca/edufacts/aqueduct.html

"Arches"; 
http://www.cradleyspecialbrick.com/Arches.htm 

Additional arch examples -- please note the 'jack arch' 
which is sometimes known as a 'flat arch'; 
http://www.pyromasse.com/auvergne.html

"At the Cutting Edge" [with the term 'bouchard' explained]; 
http://embroidery.embroiderersguild.com/pdfs/clydeolliver_embroidery.pdf

> << What I do NOT take well is someone standing over me 
> wearing a pair of sunglasses,and ridiculing my use of 
> Doc Martins on the battlefield.  And don't try to CYA 
> by giving me some clap-trap about how you *have* to wear 
> them because the Tetracyclene you are taking for your 
> CysticAcne makes you sensitive to sunlight.  That just 
> makes things worse.>>
> 
> In my opinion, it's a valid medical reason to depart 
> from historical accuracy, 

In this case, an apology about eyeglasses is not needed.  
Using eye glasses to improve vision is documented to have 
occurred in the late 1200's ... please see my prior message 
in this thread ... 

    Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Out of the food topic 
             altogetherrantAuthenticitypolice
    Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:51:01 -0500

> and bears no relationship to whether they are right about 
> Doc Martens being period footwear.  

As regards footwear, I generally advise potential members 
that they should worry more about their comfort and not 
worry about how authentic their footwear will look until 
they know they are hooked ... 

OoOoOoOoppps ... errr, I meant to say, until they are sure 
they will attend many events.  

> But it also has no bearing on the fact that if they are 
> really ridiculing you about it, then they are being 
> overbearingly rude even if every single thing about their 
> person WAS totally accurate.  

Right.  That is the real issue.  

> I have to wear mundane eyeglasses to function at an event. 
> I've tried a number of contact options and my eyes don't 
> tolerate them.  

Eyeglasses _are_ period.  Period!  

> By your criteria, 

Just curious, which message are you quoting?  

> since I have no choice but to wear the mundane glasses 
> for my own safety, I should then never mention anything 
> about authentic clothing, cooking, or anything else to 
> anyone else, even though I may have just the information 
> they are looking for.  
> That is nonsensical.
> 
> <<If you camp in a nylon tent, you've got no room to 
> criticize anyone, for anything, at any time.  

Is that written in Corpora?  

> The same holds true if you wear any piece of garb, no 
> matter how small, which was not made of period fabrics, 
> in a period manner.  

I thought the standard was 'reasonable attempt at period garb'.

> It really does not matter *how* the person speaks to you 
> in this case... it's a matter of *if* the person speaks to 
> you.  

> People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.>>

Actually no one should throw stones near any glass houses.  

[snip]

> Hey, I've had and survived a cesarian section with a
> living baby.  

Seen on the net ... 

	Numerous references to cesarean section appear in 
	ancient Hindu, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, and other 
	European folklore. Ancient Chinese etchings depict 
	the procedure on apparently living women. 

	One of the earliest printed illustrations of 
	Cesarean section. ... 1506 woodcut. 

Quoted from 

National Library of Medicine
Cesarean Section -- a Brief History
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/cesarean/cesarean_1.html

[snip]

> <<Now, if someone has their own ducks 

Getting back to a food topic is a Good Thing (TM) <g> 

[snip]

> Brangwayna

Vincenzo

-- 
Martin G. Diehl

http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Yes&Artist=MGD

Reality: That which remains after you stop thinking about it.
  inspired by P. K. Dick