Psych!

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Razor

First post, cool BB glad I found it. Better late then never!

Welcome aboard. I do not think you are seeing us at our best in this thread, though. Beware of first impressions, is all I can say!

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
You aren't arguing that the majority opinion is de facto the right one?

Yes, a lot of stuff is "accepted", and that could very well provide the fodder for a thread of its own. Offhand, I can think of a lot of reasons WHY it's accepted, other than "because it's a good thing". Such as, that the enormous variety and subtlety of the tactics make it nearly impossible to formulate a rule which would include them all, without being so laced with loopholes as to be practicably unenforceable. Such as, that the element of intent would make such a rule a nightmare to enforce---you think there is uncertainty now over the other judgement-call actions, like vindictive touch, try giving refs the power to decide that you were looking at someone wrong, ie with intent to intimidate or what all. Such as, that the Powers That Be who make the rules are so accustomed to it being the norm that they have never stopped to think about whether they're actually justifiable.

However, you will note that I was not saying that the FIE, USFA, etc. need to put a stop to these tactics, nor that they do not look upon them benignly, or whatever. I WAS saying, that they are NOT "fencing". And I feel quite sure that the fencing authorities would agree with that position.

umm... actually, I was responding directly to something you said:

Wrong, once again. Fencing is only the fencing part, between "allez" and "halt". Everything else is extraneous. You can try to keep making "fencing" include things you can do without a weapon in your hand or a mask on, but until you can convince the FIE, the USFA and the rest of the fencing world of it.

so, you see, it was YOU who infoked the all powerful majority, I just pointed out you were wrong about what the majority opinion is.

Hmm...I am inclined to say, just for the sake of the argument ( as if more of THAT were really necessary! ) that walking from hole to hole IS golfing. Witness the furor and lawsuit anent that very issue by the pro with the medical condition which make walking painful who wanted the right to use a cart....

It IS, after all, a necessary, inescapable requirement of golf that one be able to get from one hole to the next. "Mind games" in fencing are not of this nature, as one can certainly fence, and win, and do well, without them---they are not an inextricable element of the sport of fencing.

you are losing your grasp of the argument here. the analogy did not equate walking with mind games, but rather equated walking with the breaks between touches. In both instances, they are part of the game. As for mind games in golf, I am not expert enough to comment on that, though I believe the example you cite violates a specific rule. if you will note, I have always said that mind games are perfectly acceptable, IMO, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE RULES.

Just did. The only distinction I see being made is one without a difference----Fencer disturbing order on the strip, vs Any person not on the strip doing so. And the penalties? Precisely the same: "exclusion or expulsion"., as the footnotes make clear. There is NO "fencer black" and "spectator black".

Get thee to a reffing clinic. You will note, please, that on the penalty chart, "person not on strip disturbing good order" is listed seperately from the group III penalties. this is because it IS, in fact, seperate. for the group III disturbing order, you will note that the first time is a red card (touch for your opponent) and the second time is exclusion from the competition (i.e. your results will be stricken from the record, but you may stay in the venue if you wish). The penalty for the seperately listed one is a "warning", commonly denoted by a red card, but not actually the same as one, and the second case is EXPULSION (as in expulsion from the VENUE) you are, as a spectator, not a fencer, disturbing order and will be removed immediately. I would think that the drastically different penalties would indicate to you that they are different cards, but if not, please consult a ref of your choosing.

Well, you can attrribute it to whatever motives you like, of course. For my part, I think it's there only to serve two purposes: (a) because powerful coaches agitated for it, and (b) to let the REFEREE have a rest. Most sabre fencers will tell you that they certainly don't need it for catching breath, rehydrating, etc. I mean, your average sabre DE lasts less than 30 seconds elapsed fencing time. So the minute break is TWICE as long as the bout itself! This is a "necessary part" of the game now?!

However, in order to ratchet down the level of the general argument, I am going to cede you your point, for the moment: these peripheral things are part of "the sport of fencing". This is not the same thing as saying, however, that they ought by rights to be allowed to be brought into the fencing itself, to affect the opponent. Not everything that is "part of the sport" is part of the actual fencing, and any number of things in the former category are prohibited from being done on the strip, much less during the active phrase. "Mind games", IMO, fall under the same rubric.

Well, speaking from the perspective of somebody who fences a weapon where we have always had a break, I see nothing wrong with adding a little time for THOUGHT and STRATEGY to sabre. The break makes the bout much more complex, as it is much more difficult to railroad somebody on one action. So, too, btw, do stall tactics.

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Mo
Inquarta,
How could you let this go?
EpeeMike Says:
"well, judging from this forum, the ratio seems to be about 5:1 in favor of people who DON'T think I am making a "petulent spectacle" of myself."

I think this would be an excellent survey question. I think he is a petulant spectacle.
Anyone else?

Hey, don't try to make us smile while our teeth are locked in each others' throats, it's uncomfortable, to say nothing of undignified!

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
No. The flick, parries and footwork are fencing actions, which take place during the phrase.

Also, it could be used for anything in life. after all, cars are just a crutch for the incompetant walker.

-m

The inconvenient thing about the reductio ad absurdum technique is that it cuts both ways.

Your counterthesis ( if I have it right ), that ANYTHING not specifically prohibited by a rule is hunky-dory for use on the strip can be ridiculed just as easily by extreme analogies. For instance, no rule specifically prohibits you from mounting a photo flash inside your mask and triggering it to blind your opponent at the right instant. It doesn't adversely affect anyone but your opponent, so you ought to be able to use it, right? I mean, your mind thought it up, so it's just cleverness on your part, another sort of "mind game"...

But we both know that's not what you mean, and we both know that your example above does not capture the essence of what I mean. Perhaps we should stick to the actual thesis at hand? [/b][/quote] ah, but you are reducing the wrong argument. The written rules would be almost identical in both of our ideal worlds. the issue is the interpretation. What I am saying is that the current interpretation is just hunky dory. the flash bulb example would be disturbing order or unsportsmanlike with the current interpretation.

-m

[Inquartata]

Well, I suspect I won't get through this tonight. But the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single misstep, if I may misquote the old proverb, so here goes...

Originally posted by epeemike81
well, as somebody who plays head games, I did use me as an example. I did NOT imply that YOU were speaking directly to me.

Er, Mike, here's what you wrote in response to my post:

"well, judging from this forum, the ratio seems to be about 5:1 in favor of people who DON'T think I am making a "petulent spectacle" of myself. So, I believe I can live with being considered a spectacle by those few impertinant fools."

This doesn't imply that you thought I was referring to you?

Concerning the above, well, the first and second are (by your design) the most extreme exampes, only marginally related to mind games, and probably cardable for disturbing order at that point.

Yet, I have never seen such nonsense carded, in fact. It's merely tolerated, or, as you put it in a previous post, "accepted" by officials, the USFA, the FIE...

But of course they are extreme examples. They represent the destination the road onto which the lesser "games" sets the feet of those who think they're perfectly OK. And the goals are the same: to wrest some advantage for oneself by doing something which falls outside the defined parameters of fencing. To influence someone else by doing something other than fencing well.

The third example is NOTHING resembling a mind game and is further more illegal. I believe that all of us have said that mind games between touches are acceptable WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE RULES!

And...delaying the bout is an infraction of the rules, as well. Yet we see people not only advocating but DOING it. Need time to think? Want to throw your opponent's game off? Well, retie shoes that don't need it! Take a "hair break"! Straighten a perfectly good blade bend. Pull up those socks. Repeat as needed. It has become, in your words, "accepted". It has even become a subject of humor. I have yet to see a ref stop it, or card it. But I am glad that you now recognize that the behavior is illicit and ought not to be permitted.

well, the part I am having trouble fathoming is what relevance this has you your argument that head games are somehow unacceptable and wrong.

It was an attempt to iterate it as a sort of "Catch 22", Mike. As in, if it doesn't work, one shouldn't do it. And if it does work, it's a confession of incompetent fencing, so one shouldn't do it...

everything in fencing is misused by somebody, that doesn't mean its wrong!

Not following you here. Everything in fencing? "Misusing" a technique is not wrong?

And if it doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, then please stop bringing it up. I am perfectly willing to accept that IF a mindgame doesn't work you should stop doing it.

Thank you...

Now perhaps we can get back to the question of whether one can tell whether something as amorphous and internal and open to interpretation and subject to such an enormous number of possible intervening variables "works", or if one only CONVINCES oneself that it does... which sounds like something I may have said before...

note, AGAIN, that we have all said WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE RULES. Although, AFAIK, there is no rule against this, so if you can do it fast enough so as not to be delaying bout, go for it.

See above, re/ techniques used to deliberately delay bouts. If you give me awhile, I can probably come up with a rule which can be construed to prohibit "mind games" of any sort, too. I suspect it wpouldn't convince you to stop using them, though carding might, eventually. ( But then, they probably WOULDN'T card for them, rule or no, thus constructively condoning them... )

talking and acting out fencing actions??? sure! I see that all the time and find it perfectly acceptable. as for your third example, well, that is, once again, cardable.

Gee, I could have SWORN that talking on the strip was limited to asking for the score, the time, or to have an action reexplained. when is the last time you saw a fencer confine himself to this? How many fencers have you seen carded for arguing, suggesting that actions went THIS way instead of THAT way, berating the official, etc, etc, etc. "Again, cardable". Yet you find it "perfectly acceptable"?

anything allowed by the rules in the course of a bout is fine. Thus, citing examples of things already disallowed by the rules is not very helpful.

What a fine foundation for a system of honorable competition and moral action! "As long as there ain't no law agin it..."

NOTHING was against the rules the first time it was done, Mike. Doesn't mean everything was RIGHT before it was proscribed. "Letter of the law vs. its spirit" is a familiar concept. And there are, I would posit, things done in fencing which are tolerated but are not perfectly splendid ideas solely on that basis...

And then you ignore it again!

All...energy...draining...away... Mike...sapping...will...to...live...


Here is my statement, and your rejoinder:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And of course there's NO difference between perception and reality, so...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it interesting how you ignored the sentence that followed this.

You may THINK that you restated the sentence to which you were referring. But you did not. But I suppose that I can't expect you to say WHICH sentence. I suppose I am expected to go back and comb through his entire post, compare it to what I cited and answered, and reconsider something which I obviously thought irrelevant or inconsequential the first time around. How remiss of me.

If you want me to address something, tell me what it IS. Don't just hint darkly about "a sentence that followed a sentence" and then just crow about my "ignoring" it.

PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS: if you won't take personal observation as evidence, then how are we to know that feints ever work???

Although I daresay that it will set you to dancing in paroxysms of rage---I am going to have to wait until Monday to do so...

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Er, Mike, here's what you wrote in response to my post:

"well, judging from this forum, the ratio seems to be about 5:1 in favor of people who DON'T think I am making a "petulent spectacle" of myself. So, I believe I can live with being considered a spectacle by those few impertinant fools."

This doesn't imply that you thought I was referring to you?

no, it simply uses me as a counterexample.

Yet, I have never seen such nonsense carded, in fact. It's merely tolerated, or, as you put it in a previous post, "accepted" by officials, the USFA, the FIE...

If you haven't seen this carded, then my bet is you are GROSSLY exagerating the situation. The few times these displays get to the point you describe, I have seen them carded.

But of course they are extreme examples. They represent the destination the road onto which the lesser "games" sets the feet of those who think they're perfectly OK. And the goals are the same: to wrest some advantage for oneself by doing something which falls outside the defined parameters of fencing. To influence someone else by doing something other than fencing well.

right, and all marijuana users will eventually be crack *****s. . Sorry, but the "gateway offence" theory doesn't hold water.

And...delaying the bout is an infraction of the rules, as well. Yet we see people not only advocating but DOING it. Need time to think? Want to throw your opponent's game off? Well, retie shoes that don't need it! Take a "hair break"! Straighten a perfectly good blade bend. Pull up those socks. Repeat as needed. It has become, in your words, "accepted". It has even become a subject of humor. I have yet to see a ref stop it, or card it. But I am glad that you now recognize that the behavior is illicit and ought not to be permitted.

You aren't paying enough attention. No, the refs don't card it immediately, but they do call for en garde. remember, before that person could tie their shoe, straighten their blade, etc. they had to ask for the ref's permission. the reason that they GOT the ref's permission is that their blade really did get too bent. intentional? probably. cardable? not really.

It was an attempt to iterate it as a sort of "Catch 22", Mike. As in, if it doesn't work, one shouldn't do it. And if it does work, it's a confession of incompetent fencing, so one shouldn't do it...

well, you're have right. if it doesn't work, one shouldn't use it. the second portion of the argument is what we are debating. I believe that it is wrong since reasonable mind games come within the bounds of good fencing.

Not following you here. Everything in fencing? "Misusing" a technique is not wrong?

Do you really have that much trouble following simple arguments?? The sentance says "just because a technique is misused does not make it wrong." IT clearly refers back to the subject, which is technique. So, the sentance is "just because a technique is misused does not make the technique wrong." i.e., just because fecer X misuses a parry does not make parrying wrong.

Thank you...

Now perhaps we can get back to the question of whether one can tell whether something as amorphous and internal and open to interpretation and subject to such an enormous number of possible intervening variables "works", or if one only CONVINCES oneself that it does... which sounds like something I may have said before...

See below.
[qutoe]See above, re/ techniques used to deliberately delay bouts. If you give me awhile, I can probably come up with a rule which can be construed to prohibit "mind games" of any sort, too. I suspect it wpouldn't convince you to stop using them, though carding might, eventually. ( But then, they probably WOULDN'T card for them, rule or no, thus constructively condoning them... )[/quote]well sure you could. by your interpretation, disturbing order and delay of game prohibits mind games. your interpretation is NOT, however, shared by the FOC.

Gee, I could have SWORN that talking on the strip was limited to asking for the score, the time, or to have an action reexplained. when is the last time you saw a fencer confine himself to this? How many fencers have you seen carded for arguing, suggesting that actions went THIS way instead of THAT way, berating the official, etc, etc, etc. "Again, cardable". Yet you find it "perfectly acceptable"?

Talking on the strip is legal during the halt. As for arguing, if it is done politely, its fine, or at most a yellow for unjustified appeal. If they are berating the ref as you say, they shoud be, and frequently are, carded.

What a fine foundation for a system of honorable competition and moral action! "As long as there ain't no law agin it..."

NOTHING was against the rules the first time it was done, Mike. Doesn't mean everything was RIGHT before it was proscribed. "Letter of the law vs. its spirit" is a familiar concept. And there are, I would posit, things done in fencing which are tolerated but are not perfectly splendid ideas solely on that basis...

ah, so now we get back into social contrat theory. who defines spirit of the rule? I would say it is defined as a commonly held view of interpretations of the rules. by your own admission, these techniques are widely regarded as acceptable. So, until you can convince the majority of the fencing world to reinterpret the rules, you have two options: Suck it up, or start your own fencing organization where such things simply are not tolerated.

You may THINK that you restated the sentence to which you were referring. But you did not. But I suppose that I can't expect you to say WHICH sentence. I suppose I am expected to go back and comb through his entire post, compare it to what I cited and answered, and reconsider something which I obviously thought irrelevant or inconsequential the first time around. How remiss of me.
If you want me to address something, tell me what it IS. Don't just hint darkly about "a sentence that followed a sentence" and then just crow about my "ignoring" it.

actually, I DID restate it for the third time. it was, as one would expect, the very next statement. hell, you quoted it!

Although I daresay that it will set you to dancing in paroxysms of rage---I am going to have to wait until Monday to do so...

don't worry about it. I understand your need for time to think. After all, it is HARD to make untennable positions sound even close to a decent argument.

-m

[BugabooX]

OK, guys, the rest of us met in private and drew lots to determine who should risk losing his head by pointing out that your argument on this thread has degenerated into the realm of "No Good Shall Come Of This."

Really. Squint your eyes a bit and browse over the last few pages of text. (Don't read it!) Is it a community discussion any longer? Are you accomplishing anything positive by picking apart the other person's argument?

Nuh-uh.
So come on. It's time for *someone* to be the first person big enough to NOT respond, and move on to the next Big Issue In Life.

We love you. Come home. Follow the sound of our cheerful voices echoing from other message threads. You can do it ...

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Bug:

You rascal! I just spewed Diet Pepsi all over the screen.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by BugabooX
OK, guys, the rest of us met in private and drew lots to determine who should risk losing his head by pointing out that your argument on this thread has degenerated into the realm of "No Good Shall Come Of This."

Really. Squint your eyes a bit and browse over the last few pages of text. (Don't read it!) Is it a community discussion any longer? Are you accomplishing anything positive by picking apart the other person's argument?

Accomplishing anything? certainly not, but its kinda fun (note: I have a VERY perverse definition of fun)

Nuh-uh.
So come on. It's time for *someone* to be the first person big enough to NOT respond, and move on to the next Big Issue In Life.

We love you. Come home. Follow the sound of our cheerful voices echoing from other message threads. You can do it ...

The only problem with a post like this is that it gives one person more opportunity to "be the bigger man" than the other. I only get an opportunity to do such if Inq. fails to do so.

-m

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Sigh.

I suggest we lock the two of them in a room with a pair of Whacky Whackers (tm) and sell the video at the next NAC.

[Aoife]

I suggest we lock the two of them in a room with a pair of Whacky Whackers (tm) and sell the video at the next NAC.

Oh oh! I'll buy one!

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Sigh.

I suggest we lock the two of them in a room with a pair of Whacky Whackers (tm) and sell the video at the next NAC.

I don't think it would be a very entertaining video. I don't think the whacky whackers would get used at all. we would be too busy arguing.....

and, btw, my reply to bug's original post was a joke, as indicated by the .

-m

[JEC]

Whacky Whackers are sabers.
Advantage, INQ. Sorry, epeemike81.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by JEC
Whacky Whackers are sabers.
Advantage, INQ. Sorry, epeemike81.

I fence sabre as well.

-m

[Aoife]

I've just discovered that I accidently 'psyche people out'.

I was in some freeplay with a girl on Monday, when she said about the 'evil face' I kept pulling. I was somewhat confused as not trying to pull any particular face. When I mentioned it to my dad he said that I use to do the same thing when I did Karate- every now and then an expression would flicker across my face that was extremely focused and slight intimidating (although I'm not certain how, at the age and height I was back then - or now in fact - I could ever been seen as particularly 'intimidating') But, either way, in today's lesson I got my friend to tell me whenever I pulled the face, and I was horribly surprised at it's frequency. I never meant to use mind-games on anybody, and I was certainly not trying to scare anybody, but I just occasionally show every ounce of concentration in me.

Whoops.