From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: On the Nature of Armor ...
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:27:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.180005.8728@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>I write with a heavy heart.  This topic and the discussion has lost all
>semblence of joy to me.  I have received email from more than one person
>that can only be called hateful.  

I am distressed that any discussion in this forum would result in
*anything* that could be described that way.

Even when I very *strongly* disagree with something that is said here,
I feel that personal attacks, hateful comments and such are uncalled
for.

My apologies for your receipt of any such missives.  

For everyone, I think I need to make a few remarks.  Some of this I
consider "obvious" or "common sense".  Other parts I learned through
experience...

It is difficult to portray emotion or feeling in the written word.
*I* try--and I know I often fail.  We honor highly authors that are
good at it--and they often need entire novels to build to the point of
handling strong emotion with the written word.  It is my experience
that the very natural human response to this problem is to 'escalate'
the language--to *over*state and excessively emphasize and overuse the
words that convey strong emotion when spoken.  Unfortunately, differences
in what words and what tones of voice words are used do not
'translate' easily to this medium.  A result can easily be
misunderstanding.  *Especially* misunderstandings about what sort of
message is meant.

I urge everyone to keep language moderate.  I urge everyone reading
messages to 'filter out' harsh language and try to pick out what the
writer means to say--and then use the emotional content to determine
how it's meant and how strongly it is meant to be said.

If you think there is a problem in your communications--let your
message cool for a while.  Then try to deal with the *substance* it
contains.  If you must deal with the emotion--inquire (calmly, coolly,
unemotionally) about what is actually meant.

My Lord Peregrine--my apologies for using your missive as a launching
pad for these remarks.  I hope that what you have received has been
misunderstood and that those who sent you such remarks will send you
suitable additional comments detailing their points of difference and
apologizing from the tone of what they have already sent.

>I have been told that I am a clueless 
>fool,  that A&S types shouldn't talk about fighters,  and that
>my faux-medieval speech patterns are rotten.   For the first - I don't
>know if I am a fool, but I do know that I am not wise.   As per the second -
>although I am an A&S type now, I have swung my share of rattan, although
>it was more than a decade ago when I fought my last.  As per the last, I 
>am sorry that I am not perfect, but at least I am making some sort of 
>attempt.  (and my attempts are faux-rennaisance)

I, for one, have found your postings to be excellent.  I, too, am an
ex-fighter.  I've done my share of A&S--and your comments indicate
that you have far outstripped my meager efforts.  Pray, continue to
post.

>I have read several posts today about armor, and good reasons for making it
>out of inauthentic materials - namely poverty and paucity.  I concur
>with these reasons, having lived under both of them myself.  When I was a
>grad student learning to fight I too used carpet and plastic armor because
>of poverty.
>
>My complaint is not leveled against those who aspire to fight and are FORCED
>to "make do" with inauthentic materials.   My complaint is against those
>who aspire to use inauthentic materials as a method to improve their chances
>to win in battle, and who don't care about the fact that they look like Darth
>Vader with a stick.

These are precisely the points I was attempting to make when I opened
the subject in the way I did.  I thank you for your clear comments
agreeing with me.

>I am sorry if I gave people the impression that I didn't appreciate people who
>made an attempt, although imperfect.  I think that anyone who strives to
>acheive their level of authenticity should be applauded and encouraged.
>As some one said, let us not make the best the enemy of the good.

There appear to be any number of us in this forum that share this
sentiment.

For the general readership, let me note that I do not think this is an
"Authenticity Maven" vs. "Fun Maven" issue.  The trick of to make the
authenticity fun....and the fun authentic.  I know I fail to meet the
standards of authenticity that many here set themselves to--but I
applaud their efforts.

>As a final note, I posted a few days ago about inauthentic intrusiveness, 
>attemting to explain a bit of these feelings from anotherr viewpoint.
>However, there has been no response to that post, and I don't remember
>seeing it.  Did anybody else see it?  No comments?  Or am I on everybodiess
>kill file by this point? *weak attempt at humour*

I think you've run into a problem I have encountered in the past (much
to my amazement).  There is the risk that you made such a clear,
definitive, unassailable and cogent posting that no one can think of a
way to add to it or dispute it.

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |