[Sca-cooks] [Sca-Cooks] Pasties article in the new T.I.
sprucebranch at gmail.com
Mon Aug 6 03:39:56 PDT 2007
And, remember, you don't necessarily need to offend when you contradict. I
fully believe in using source citing as a way of avoiding offense; if the
other person was using a contradictory source, then, perhaps, conflicts are
only apparent, not real. One person finds a source that says one thing,
another finds a source that says another.
This happens all the time, and citing your sources allows the person to stop
obsessing about your offensiveness in contradicting, and can concentrate on
the offensiveness of a reference existing that disagrees with them; it
deflects the ill-feeling to the reference material, which is where it,
strictly speaking, is appropriate and belongs.
The ill-feeling towards reference materials will lead one to attack the
resource; instead of having one's full energy mis-directed towards
scholastic disagreement, some of the energy can be directed towards the
research of refuting the reference. If this energy is honestly applied, it
can actually help verify the resource, if the resource is correct. And
improving scholarship can help increase your knowledge, and your opponent's
knowledge, and increase the scholastic community's understanding.
Even if the increase is only in spreading the word about the faulty nature
of a particular resource. Even if it is "known," not everybody may know
it. Once it becomes widespread, due to it being rediscovered and confirmed,
we can have fewer people being led down a wrong trail, wasting their time on
research based on bunk.
Maybe, we can even get Discovery Channel specials with people wearing the
right armor for the period, or living in the correct kinds of housing.
(Lorica Segmentata in the Samnite Wars? I don't think so.) And some of the
knowledge may leak into the movies; I've noticed that sometimes, common
knowledge of scholars will leak into the public consciousness. Not usually,
but it sure is gratifying when it works.
If you want to be REALLY thorough, request information on the sources used
for the first article, and compare them with your sources. This may not be
possible; but if it isn't, it still means that publishing your information
is key; just make sure you let people know where you're getting your ideas,
and how you're drawing your conclusions. (Vampire bats caused the
Peloponnesian Wars?....uh...could you explain your conclusions? Thucydides
and Pericles took a hunting trip to South America and caught rabies? And
you got this information from a comic book? And verified it with an episode
of Dr. Who? Hmmmmm...let me show you alternate research resources....)
On 7/31/07, Alex Clark <alexbclark at pennswoods.net> wrote:
> I am sorry, but you are being self-effacing to a fault. You are not
> unworthy to say what you know just because someone else has said something
> to the contrary in the past. You have as much right as the next
> as much right as the previous person--to write and submit your article.
> If what this is about is mainly concern for the previous writer's feelings
> or status, I think you should consider yourself on an equal basis. If you
> have to suppress your own knowledge in order to keep from showing another
> person up, then you are giving far more importance to the other person
> to yourself. BTW, AFAIK you may be showing more consideration for the
> feelings of someone whose feelings you know nothing about than for your
> feelings, which you presumably do know.
> Henry of Maldon/Alex Clark
> Sca-cooks mailing list
> Sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org
Ian of Oertha
More information about the Sca-cooks