gpw
Private
Posts: 8
|
Post by gpw on Mar 6, 2011 18:11:26 GMT -5
I didn't like it either, for the record -Brad
|
|
|
Post by TC1c Dunigan on Mar 6, 2011 18:27:23 GMT -5
Criticism and questioning the status quo is important, as otherwise stuff like this would just be mutual masturbation. MARNEPUP! I completely agree MARNEPUP. However, he focuses only on the negative and never gives the person a compliment when they do anything right. I mean nobody will be 100% thats just fact. However, he never even says.." keep working at it your going in the right direction!" there's no encouragement, just negativity and that hurts this genre. Regards, FRISCAN
|
|
|
Post by TC1c Dunigan on Mar 6, 2011 18:29:18 GMT -5
I didn't like it either, for the record -Brad Didn't like what? The impression or the way Tom beats everyone down with negativity? Regards, FRISCAN
|
|
|
Post by 34thtcflyboy on Mar 6, 2011 19:00:16 GMT -5
Oh Jim, always with the gleaming uniforms and the shiny boots! You should join the DSOB's as the one clean guy!
P.S. great job on the garrison belt in lieu of the web trouser belt! You see it in a LOT of photos but I don't think I've ever seen a reenactor do it once!
|
|
GyreneGreen
Forum MP
1st Battalion, 399th IR "Red Raiders"
Posts: 1,011
|
Post by GyreneGreen on Mar 6, 2011 19:18:07 GMT -5
Tom, Do you realize how you sound? You do realize you are the ONLY one to say anything negative against this impression? I'm mean you can go on about this bayonet and that bayonet or that article and how authentic it is. The fact is that I take more out of oldmp's information or posts than yours. Why you may think? Because they are positive. I think in all the time you've been on this forums I have not once come across a post that you made that wasn't negative. I like to be around authentic like minded well rounded historians. Not just someone who is a "collector grade" historian on one subject. You are foolish to listen to one person and believe everything that person says. You need multiple sources, there are some items that if there isn't any information on readily available, then you have to find a happy medium. This guy is an expert in his field, not just a collector and if you read his article he does provide citation for some of his research but definitely leaves a bit to be desired. Ironically, you cite Canfield all the time who is of a similar caliber on a different subject and yet Cunningham is dismissed out of a hand as being a "collector" and I would assume not a "well rounded historian" (whatever that means). While we are on the subject of references, or multiple references let's focus again on how you have none. As for not saying anything nice, on this very section of the board I found one. Notice the second post. ww2reenactors.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=detailed&action=display&thread=28120
|
|
MissMartha
Forum MP
FIG - Federation Staff - Tactical Officer, Veterans Coordinator
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by MissMartha on Mar 6, 2011 20:55:29 GMT -5
Hey I said something negative -- missing tie and shirt collar -- Martha
|
|
|
Post by williegford on Mar 6, 2011 21:10:35 GMT -5
Jim, Put up some pictures of them in use. Better than that, put up anything that validates their issuance to your unit. Best- show them in use by the unit you portray. Failing that you can still take refuge in ambiguities if that makes it ok for you to use, go nuts. It is still a very flimsy argument. At least I have posted some research, unless you consider "I read an article somewhere" or "I have pictures of them in use that I won't post" to be research. I really hope you do have pictures of beak point bayonets in use. Their has been a discussion amongst my friends for a long time about this same subject and we haven't been able to turn any up. Finally, I didn't contradict myself. The entire point of my questioning is to establish how much research you had done on the subject and if you knew anything beyond "it was done so it's authentic". Tom, Do you realize how you sound? You do realize you are the ONLY one to say anything negative against this impression? I'm mean you can go on about this bayonet and that bayonet or that article and how authentic it is. The fact is that I take more out of oldmp's information or posts than yours. Why you may think? Because they are positive. I think in all the time you've been on this forums I have not once come across a post that you made that wasn't negative. I like to be around authentic like minded well rounded historians. Not just someone who is a "collector grade" historian on one subject. You are foolish to listen to one person and believe everything that person says. You need multiple sources, there are some items that if there isn't any information on readily available, then you have to find a happy medium. For this impression I am the ONLY one with this style bayonet. Am I incorrect? No. They were used in WWII in limited quantities, we know they were. If we know that much, then they are period authentic. There are not many photos of the 121st in combat or any where for that fact so we are having to be very reserved on many items within the 121st. The two things we have no doubts about of the 121st are (1) they had bed rolls, and (2) they had the early style uniform w/ 38 leggings (yes, this late in WWII). Is this impression going to be 100%? It can't be without full documentation. We don't have that... So, the best we can do is to find a happy medium in this particular impression. Does this make me a farb? No. Sometimes the research only goes so far. Respectfully, FRISCAN PS ~ I'll post that pic soon. All Tom has asked for is documentation on the cut-down that you chose to use. You have supplied none other then supposition. You could have ended this quickly by either supply some form of documentation (post that pic) or simply stating "You may have a point. I'll look into that". Done. It would have been over. Instead you keep up this anecdotal string of "could haves". And there has been another post on here, by somebody other then Tom, critiquing a lack of a particular item on your rifle that Martin declared anathema for this post. Overall, I think your impression looks very good. Your ability to take constructive criticism is another story. Bill
|
|
Buggnkat
2nd Lieutenant
When 800 years you be, not as good will you look
Posts: 919
|
Post by Buggnkat on Mar 6, 2011 21:58:02 GMT -5
Hey I said something negative -- missing tie and shirt collar -- Martha You foul mouthed stitch nazi you!
|
|
|
Post by TC1c Dunigan on Mar 6, 2011 22:43:42 GMT -5
Tom, Do you realize how you sound? You do realize you are the ONLY one to say anything negative against this impression? I'm mean you can go on about this bayonet and that bayonet or that article and how authentic it is. The fact is that I take more out of oldmp's information or posts than yours. Why you may think? Because they are positive. I think in all the time you've been on this forums I have not once come across a post that you made that wasn't negative. I like to be around authentic like minded well rounded historians. Not just someone who is a "collector grade" historian on one subject. You are foolish to listen to one person and believe everything that person says. You need multiple sources, there are some items that if there isn't any information on readily available, then you have to find a happy medium. For this impression I am the ONLY one with this style bayonet. Am I incorrect? No. They were used in WWII in limited quantities, we know they were. If we know that much, then they are period authentic. There are not many photos of the 121st in combat or any where for that fact so we are having to be very reserved on many items within the 121st. The two things we have no doubts about of the 121st are (1) they had bed rolls, and (2) they had the early style uniform w/ 38 leggings (yes, this late in WWII). Is this impression going to be 100%? It can't be without full documentation. We don't have that... So, the best we can do is to find a happy medium in this particular impression. Does this make me a farb? No. Sometimes the research only goes so far. Respectfully, FRISCAN PS ~ I'll post that pic soon. All Tom has asked for is documentation on the cut-down that you chose to use. You have supplied none other then supposition. You could have ended this quickly by either supply some form of documentation (post that pic) or simply stating "You may have a point. I'll look into that". Done. It would have been over. Instead you keep up this anecdotal string of "could haves". And there has been another post on here, by somebody other then Tom, critiquing a lack of a particular item on your rifle that Martin declared anathema for this post. Overall, I think your impression looks very good. Your ability to take constructive criticism is another story. Bill Bill, I had already in a previous post told him that we had not seen these bayonets with them but, we knew they had been issued in limited numbers. I've also told him there are items we are having to settle on a "happy medium" because we don't have documentation on so we are having to essentially wing it since the documentation isn't there. All I'm trying to explain to him(which I have obviously failed to do) is sometimes we have to compromise on certain things. Research may be great for some units others clearly not so much. So, your forced to compromise. Now as for the pic I have it is not 8th ID, 121st its 3rd ID, 30th IR on pass and review near Rome. So, its not going to help this impression anyways. To my dismay as well, I was going to scan it and a recent ferrotype from the event this weekend and low and behold the application for my scanner is gone off my computer. So I'll have to find the disc with the application and reinstall it so I can scan again Regards, FRISCAN
|
|
GyreneGreen
Forum MP
1st Battalion, 399th IR "Red Raiders"
Posts: 1,011
|
Post by GyreneGreen on Mar 6, 2011 23:01:40 GMT -5
Gary Cunningham is a historian, a published author, and a well respected authority on U.S. bayonets. His credentials are as bonafide as many other authors who write on WWII uniforms, weapons, and the like. Is Mark Bando not "well rounded" because he only focuses on the 101st Airborne and 2nd Armored? Tulkoff because he only focuses on the Marines? Mason because he only focuses on Paramarines?
Who are some of these "well rounded historians" you rub elbows with? Maybe that would tell me more about what that term actually means.
|
|
|
Post by 34thtcflyboy on Mar 7, 2011 0:48:30 GMT -5
My bayonet is bigger than both of yours...
|
|
|
Post by MARNEPUPPY on Mar 7, 2011 0:50:59 GMT -5
My bayonet is bigger than both of yours... Did you make that up all by yourself? Your mom must be proud. MARNEPUP!
|
|
irgendwo
S/Sgt.
DREH' DEN SWAG AUF
Posts: 389
|
Post by irgendwo on Mar 7, 2011 1:03:13 GMT -5
Ironically, you cite Canfield all the time who is of a similar caliber on a different subject and yet Cunningham is dismissed out of a hand as being a "collector" and I would assume not a "well rounded historian" (whatever that means). I quote Canfield? Canfield is A HISTORIAN on the weapons and equipment of the U.S. Military. He knows more than just bayonets. The man knows ever nook and cranny of anything dealing with U.S. weaponry and equipment and then some. Thats a "well rounded historian." Do you understand what a "well rounded historian" is now? Respectfully, FRISCAN Historians focus on particular eras and aspects of history, and generally stick with it. You're not going to ask somebody whose focus is on Feminism during the Taisho era of Japan about conquests in the Middle East during the Ummayad period. Especially if said questions require very detailed answers. I mean, a historian will generally know quite a bit of history, and be "well rounded" just in their education. The two above subjects are things that I have learned about through historical study, but my focus is on 20th Century German history, which coincides with the language I am attempting to learn. In regards to reenacting, I prefer the study of German uniforms, especially the Feldbluse. Arguably along with the Stahlhelm, the Feldbluse is one of the most recognizable aspects of the German uniform. Though a novice collector, I have used books specifically written on this subject to learn more, and to prove points in an argument. Using good, reputable sources is key to historical study. Denouncing something specific because it's not "well rounded" is possibly one of the strangest excuses I have ever heard. *edit (addition) Also, one doesn't need to be a "historian" to write useful information. To specialize and take the time to explain the history, background, and other aspects of something, especially if done well with proper research and citation, is worthy of my accolades.
|
|
|
Post by 34thtcflyboy on Mar 7, 2011 1:14:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TC1c Dunigan on Mar 7, 2011 1:38:00 GMT -5
Ya know Tom... I am not even going to further this argument, its already colossally retarded enough as it is because of your antics. Due to the fact you can't even grasp a concept as simple as what a "well-rounded" historians is? Shows how little you actually know. I will make it as simple as this to you and this will be the end of it on my end... a "well-rounded" historian does not (1) cite a quote from ANY online source as fact due to the fact half are full of crap and it hard to actually tell who is actually telling the truth, (2) a "'well-rounded" historian also expands his knowledge base outside of his comfort zone and (3) NEVER cites one source as fact but, cites many stating the same as fact, overwhelming proof will free you of of any negligence.(Bando, De Trez, Canfield...etc.) As for the bayonet... we don't know, we don't know... oh well, its one of those things that is "50/50" he could have, he may not have had one we don't know so we go with a happy medium within our own judgement. Don't like it? Too bad not your impression. Yours would be different from mine which would make us both authentic because no two soldiers were identical. There, I've said all I'm going to say on it...nuff said. Could we please get this thread cleaned up and back on topic Mods? Respectfully, FRISCAN
|
|
MissMartha
Forum MP
FIG - Federation Staff - Tactical Officer, Veterans Coordinator
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by MissMartha on Mar 7, 2011 7:48:04 GMT -5
I apologize for my funning with you. Just wanted to lighten this up a bit. Martha
|
|
GyreneGreen
Forum MP
1st Battalion, 399th IR "Red Raiders"
Posts: 1,011
|
Post by GyreneGreen on Mar 7, 2011 11:12:07 GMT -5
Ya know Tom... I am not even going to further this argument, its already colossally retarded enough as it is because of your antics. Due to the fact you can't even grasp a concept as simple as what a "well-rounded" historians is? Shows how little you actually know. Again with the ad hominem remarks. I have a degree in the study of history. Historians specialize, in fact that is all you do in graduate history programs. 1. "historian does not (1) cite a quote from ANY online source as fact due to the fact half are full of crap and it hard to actually tell who is actually telling the truth"www.dogfacesoldiers.comwww.101airborneww2.com/Not credible? After all, these are only websites. 2. a "'well-rounded" historian also expands his knowledge base outside of his comfort zone This is ambiguous, first because I want an example of a well rounded historian and what constitutes being outside of their "comfort zone". 3. (3) NEVER cites one source as fact but, cites many stating the same as fact, overwhelming proof will free you of of any negligence.(Bando, De Trez, Canfield...etc.)What if he is reciting the same information from his book? Cunningham is doing the same thing as Bando. By the way Cunningham himself cites other sources, this being one of them and a great example of a primary source: cgi.ebay.com/US-Army-Report-1917-45-Bayonets-Trench-Knife-Scabbard-/350443792589
|
|
irgendwo
S/Sgt.
DREH' DEN SWAG AUF
Posts: 389
|
Post by irgendwo on Mar 7, 2011 11:20:46 GMT -5
Ya know Tom... I am not even going to further this argument, its already colossally retarded enough as it is because of your antics. Due to the fact you can't even grasp a concept as simple as what a "well-rounded" historians is? Shows how little you actually know. I will make it as simple as this to you and this will be the end of it on my end... a "well-rounded" historian does not (1) cite a quote from ANY online source as fact due to the fact half are full of crap and it hard to actually tell who is actually telling the truth, (2) a "'well-rounded" historian also expands his knowledge base outside of his comfort zone and (3) NEVER cites one source as fact but, cites many stating the same as fact, overwhelming proof will free you of of any negligence.(Bando, De Trez, Canfield...etc.) As for the bayonet... we don't know, we don't know... oh well, its one of those things that is "50/50" he could have, he may not have had one we don't know so we go with a happy medium within our own judgement. Don't like it? Too bad not your impression. Yours would be different from mine which would make us both authentic because no two soldiers were identical. There, I've said all I'm going to say on it...nuff said. Could we please get this thread cleaned up and back on topic Mods? Respectfully, FRISCAN Wrong. Historians can and will cite from an online source if it is credible. If a website is trustworthy, sometimes even digitalized primary sources can be found. Here's a good ACW one: valley.lib.virginia.edu/Of course you need to be mindful about what websites are trustworthy, but there are some good ones out there. I am also a history major, and I can't figure out what "well rounded" means either.
|
|
MissMartha
Forum MP
FIG - Federation Staff - Tactical Officer, Veterans Coordinator
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by MissMartha on Mar 7, 2011 11:23:13 GMT -5
Okay you two knock it off -- it's becoming a moot point.
|
|
Old Salt
Retired Forum MP
Der springende Reiter
Posts: 3,704
|
Post by Old Salt on Mar 7, 2011 11:51:56 GMT -5
Enough!
|
|