Parry or non-parry?

Jonathan Jefferies wrote:

> My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
> i.e. a way to teach.

Sort of true. Some found that the foil could serve quite well in
combats and duels. Sharpen the point and voila not just a training
tool. The target is designated to assure the likelihood of really
finishing a real fight as opposed to the "first blood" honor rules of epee.

Have you seen and or read the Spanish novel or movie: The Fencing
Master? He and other use foils to "good" effect. Good movie and book too.

I have a passing acquaintance with the Japanese sword and its use. I
think that your analogy may miss slightly if one considers that during
virtually all of its history Japanese fencing has had one ultimate
outcome: to kill your opponent as quickly as possible. Most blows with
a katana would be fatal. Just as an interesting aside, Musahi, perhaps
that penultimate swordsman you mention, used a bokan or similar rather
than steel almost exclusively later in his career and people were trying
to kill him not just score points. He died of old age they did not.

I think that Kendo, with its european fencing like limitations on target
and strikes, while an interesting game requiring great skill, does not
realistically prepare one for combat with the sword any more than modern
foil prepares one for combat with a small sword. (try flicking with one)
Iado, Kenjutsu and some forms of Aikijitsu are intended as "real" combat
training and the dearth of bouting rules reflects this. Even Kendo is
played at full speed and full contact and any landed cut or thrust would
probably end the fight if not instantly fatal.
I recall a story, that may be true, of a Korean sword master (who may
still be teaching in Boston) who upon his arrival in Japan to test his
skills, faced the then leading Kendo masters. He, to put it bluntly,
cut them to ribbons. Figuratively of course. Combat is just different.

> which is one reason why I favor the epee. But even it has things I
> find troubling, Such as the double. Really feel that any double
> should be thrown out. Many epeists will play a game of get a couple
> of points up and then double out.

And in real life they would be bleeding all over the place and honor
would not be satisfied so it wouldn't happen.


> Sorry but there's nothing new here. Read Aldo Nadi's description of
> his bout in Paris and how he felt the french influenced the results.
> If it's important to win then someone will go over the top.
>
Yeah I know, its the same in all sports and yes I've read the Nadi
material too. Fascinating family in an interesting time.


>> Another reason my grandchildren will probably not fence "Olympic" style.
>
> My sympathies then.

I will not dissuade them but I will not encourage them either. I do not
see the life lessons that I want to teach in current fencing style and
competition.
Honesty, integrity, self reliance, honor, and civilized behavior.

Enough or I'll get in more trouble than I am already.

A most stimulating discussion. I've learned a thing or two, always a
good sign.

Thanks

>
> J.
>

"R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in news:3E4B0815.3070408@qwest.net:

> Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
>> i.e. a way to teach.
>
> Sort of true. Some found that the foil could serve quite well in
> combats and duels.

Who found this? There is the story regarding Jean-Michel (I think that's
his name) and the oaf, but Jean-Michel used an unmodified foil to
humiliate the oaf even further.

> tool. The target is designated to assure the likelihood of really
> finishing a real fight as opposed to the "first blood" honor rules of
> epee.

When Aldo Nadi duelled with epee, it was not to "first blood". Likewise,
many epee duels were not to "first blood". Many duellists scoffed at the
practice.


> Have you seen and or read the Spanish novel or movie: The Fencing
> Master? He and other use foils to "good" effect. Good movie and book
> too.

And this is based on what verifiable actual practice? After all, the
Disney version of the Three Musketeers shows a rapier used as a missile
weapon...


> And in real life they would be bleeding all over the place and honor
> would not be satisfied so it wouldn't happen.

Actually, "bleeding all over the place" seems to have been remarkably
common, according to actual duel accounts I've read.

"R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in news:3E4B0815.3070408@qwest.net:

> Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
>> i.e. a way to teach.
>
> Sort of true. Some found that the foil could serve quite well in
> combats and duels.

Who found this? There is the story regarding Jean-Michel (I think that's
his name) and the oaf, but Jean-Michel used an unmodified foil to
humiliate the oaf even further.

> tool. The target is designated to assure the likelihood of really
> finishing a real fight as opposed to the "first blood" honor rules of
> epee.

When Aldo Nadi duelled with epee, it was not to "first blood". Likewise,
many epee duels were not to "first blood". Many duellists scoffed at the
practice.


> Have you seen and or read the Spanish novel or movie: The Fencing
> Master? He and other use foils to "good" effect. Good movie and book
> too.

And this is based on what verifiable actual practice? After all, the
Disney version of the Three Musketeers shows a rapier used as a missile
weapon...


> And in real life they would be bleeding all over the place and honor
> would not be satisfied so it wouldn't happen.

Actually, "bleeding all over the place" seems to have been remarkably
common, according to actual duel accounts I've read.

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:51:01 -0700
R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
>> i.e. a way to teach.
>
>Sort of true. Some found that the foil could serve quite well in
>combats and duels. Sharpen the point and voila not just a training

Oh? Never heard of it, can you give me an instance to look up? Not
fiction, but an actual episode?

Every single thing I've read says that the modern "foil" is a training
tool. A foiled - that is bated/dull - blade is a different thing,
the weapon Hamlet was facing Laertes with wasn't a square section
flexible blade...

The foil as we understand it seems to have been a smallsword training
tool, with the epee having come from the smallsword itself, although
the Italians were using (according to the Baron de Bazancourt writing
in 1860) rapiers and daggers when he was a young man, and their modern
weapons hark back to this with the rapier style hilt.

I don't see why anyone would *bother* to sharpen a foil. If you are
going to use a sword to wound someone, use one built for the purpose,
specifically one that's sturdy enough for the job of hitting bone.

Zebee

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:51:01 -0700
R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
>> i.e. a way to teach.
>
>Sort of true. Some found that the foil could serve quite well in
>combats and duels. Sharpen the point and voila not just a training

Oh? Never heard of it, can you give me an instance to look up? Not
fiction, but an actual episode?

Every single thing I've read says that the modern "foil" is a training
tool. A foiled - that is bated/dull - blade is a different thing,
the weapon Hamlet was facing Laertes with wasn't a square section
flexible blade...

The foil as we understand it seems to have been a smallsword training
tool, with the epee having come from the smallsword itself, although
the Italians were using (according to the Baron de Bazancourt writing
in 1860) rapiers and daggers when he was a young man, and their modern
weapons hark back to this with the rapier style hilt.

I don't see why anyone would *bother* to sharpen a foil. If you are
going to use a sword to wound someone, use one built for the purpose,
specifically one that's sturdy enough for the job of hitting bone.

Zebee

Heavy sigh...... I enter only for my own intellectual stimulation. I
respectfully offer the following thoughts:
The history of the sword is hundreds no thousands or years old. We can
all probably find some anecdotal evidence to support a particular
opinion or impression of what did and did not happen. One can be
assured that if it could happen it probably did.
People have fought/dueled with chickens for all I know. They've
fought/duelled in balloons. With snowballs in hell in july.

Much of dueling's history led to fatalities sometimes to all
participants, their seconds and the spectators.
There were also periods when to enter the duel with the intent of
killing your opponent was considered ungentlemanly if not down right
murderous should you succeed.

A nice stiff foil blade or foil type blade may be found in some, but not
all sword canes, even historical ones. I've seen them myself.
A stiff foil blade, not the whippy things used today, would most
certainly puncture ribs if thrust properly. Some might opt for the
speed of a light foil type blade over even the relatively light small
sword. I've use both and there is a noticeable difference.

Oh and by the by haven't fencers been killed and seriously injured by
foils. Even with all the "armor". It seems that if you just break off
the tip you have a lethal weapon, let alone purposely sharpen one.

As to Arturo Perez-Reverte's The Fencing Master. I offer it not as
evidence or even as accurate in its portrayal of swordsmanship but as a
possible example of the use of a "foil" as an effective killing weapon.
What the mind conceives the hand may achieve.
Also an enjoyable read and interesting film.

BTW: have you all picked up your copy or By The Sword by Richard Cohen.
IMHO We should be supporting this kind of effort by buying it. It's
pretty good. Lots of anecdotes and historical notes as well a musings.
Much from sources you may have already but put together in a neat and
enjoyable package.

On the original topic, I too was troubled by A's hit coming so late
after B's arrived. I still thing B should have cleared the point but in
the rules of the game today with the order of hits, B then A, the
referee may have been correct in calling it for B. As others have
pointed out, only one of us in this discussion actually saw the action
so we are all just thrashing around. I'm having fun hope you all are too.

RSE




Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> "R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in news:3E4B0815.3070408@qwest.net:
>
>
>>Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
>>> i.e. a way to teach.
>>
>>Sort of true. Some found that the foil could serve quite well in
>>combats and duels.
>
>
> Who found this? There is the story regarding Jean-Michel (I think that's
> his name) and the oaf, but Jean-Michel used an unmodified foil to
> humiliate the oaf even further.
>
>
>>tool. The target is designated to assure the likelihood of really
>>finishing a real fight as opposed to the "first blood" honor rules of
>>epee.
>
>
> When Aldo Nadi duelled with epee, it was not to "first blood". Likewise,
> many epee duels were not to "first blood". Many duellists scoffed at the
> practice.
>
>
>
>>Have you seen and or read the Spanish novel or movie: The Fencing
>>Master? He and other use foils to "good" effect. Good movie and book
>>too.
>
>
> And this is based on what verifiable actual practice? After all, the
> Disney version of the Three Musketeers shows a rapier used as a missile
> weapon...
>
>
>
>>And in real life they would be bleeding all over the place and honor
>>would not be satisfied so it wouldn't happen.
>
>
> Actually, "bleeding all over the place" seems to have been remarkably
> common, according to actual duel accounts I've read.
>

Heavy sigh...... I enter only for my own intellectual stimulation. I
respectfully offer the following thoughts:
The history of the sword is hundreds no thousands or years old. We can
all probably find some anecdotal evidence to support a particular
opinion or impression of what did and did not happen. One can be
assured that if it could happen it probably did.
People have fought/dueled with chickens for all I know. They've
fought/duelled in balloons. With snowballs in hell in july.

Much of dueling's history led to fatalities sometimes to all
participants, their seconds and the spectators.
There were also periods when to enter the duel with the intent of
killing your opponent was considered ungentlemanly if not down right
murderous should you succeed.

A nice stiff foil blade or foil type blade may be found in some, but not
all sword canes, even historical ones. I've seen them myself.
A stiff foil blade, not the whippy things used today, would most
certainly puncture ribs if thrust properly. Some might opt for the
speed of a light foil type blade over even the relatively light small
sword. I've use both and there is a noticeable difference.

Oh and by the by haven't fencers been killed and seriously injured by
foils. Even with all the "armor". It seems that if you just break off
the tip you have a lethal weapon, let alone purposely sharpen one.

As to Arturo Perez-Reverte's The Fencing Master. I offer it not as
evidence or even as accurate in its portrayal of swordsmanship but as a
possible example of the use of a "foil" as an effective killing weapon.
What the mind conceives the hand may achieve.
Also an enjoyable read and interesting film.

BTW: have you all picked up your copy or By The Sword by Richard Cohen.
IMHO We should be supporting this kind of effort by buying it. It's
pretty good. Lots of anecdotes and historical notes as well a musings.
Much from sources you may have already but put together in a neat and
enjoyable package.

On the original topic, I too was troubled by A's hit coming so late
after B's arrived. I still thing B should have cleared the point but in
the rules of the game today with the order of hits, B then A, the
referee may have been correct in calling it for B. As others have
pointed out, only one of us in this discussion actually saw the action
so we are all just thrashing around. I'm having fun hope you all are too.

RSE




Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> "R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in news:3E4B0815.3070408@qwest.net:
>
>
>>Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My understanding is that foil has always been a pedagogical game,
>>> i.e. a way to teach.
>>
>>Sort of true. Some found that the foil could serve quite well in
>>combats and duels.
>
>
> Who found this? There is the story regarding Jean-Michel (I think that's
> his name) and the oaf, but Jean-Michel used an unmodified foil to
> humiliate the oaf even further.
>
>
>>tool. The target is designated to assure the likelihood of really
>>finishing a real fight as opposed to the "first blood" honor rules of
>>epee.
>
>
> When Aldo Nadi duelled with epee, it was not to "first blood". Likewise,
> many epee duels were not to "first blood". Many duellists scoffed at the
> practice.
>
>
>
>>Have you seen and or read the Spanish novel or movie: The Fencing
>>Master? He and other use foils to "good" effect. Good movie and book
>>too.
>
>
> And this is based on what verifiable actual practice? After all, the
> Disney version of the Three Musketeers shows a rapier used as a missile
> weapon...
>
>
>
>>And in real life they would be bleeding all over the place and honor
>>would not be satisfied so it wouldn't happen.
>
>
> Actually, "bleeding all over the place" seems to have been remarkably
> common, according to actual duel accounts I've read.
>

>Have you seen and or read the Spanish novel or movie: The Fencing
>Master? He and other use foils to "good" effect. Good movie and book too.
>

Amazing book. I would highly recommend it to everyone on this newsgroup!

>Have you seen and or read the Spanish novel or movie: The Fencing
>Master? He and other use foils to "good" effect. Good movie and book too.
>

Amazing book. I would highly recommend it to everyone on this newsgroup!

"R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in news:3E4B3D48.2060006@qwest.net:

> A nice stiff foil blade or foil type blade may be found in some, but
> not
> all sword canes, even historical ones. I've seen them myself.

And sword canes were, of course, the predominant duelling weapon? Or were
they more of a sideshow?

> As to Arturo Perez-Reverte's The Fencing Master. I offer it not as
> evidence or even as accurate in its portrayal of swordsmanship but as
> a possible example of the use of a "foil" as an effective killing
> weapon. What the mind conceives the hand may achieve.
> Also an enjoyable read and interesting film.

Therefore, one should likewise put the Disney "Musketeers" forth as
"evidence" that the rapier is a missile weapon!

"R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in news:3E4B3D48.2060006@qwest.net:

> A nice stiff foil blade or foil type blade may be found in some, but
> not
> all sword canes, even historical ones. I've seen them myself.

And sword canes were, of course, the predominant duelling weapon? Or were
they more of a sideshow?

> As to Arturo Perez-Reverte's The Fencing Master. I offer it not as
> evidence or even as accurate in its portrayal of swordsmanship but as
> a possible example of the use of a "foil" as an effective killing
> weapon. What the mind conceives the hand may achieve.
> Also an enjoyable read and interesting film.

Therefore, one should likewise put the Disney "Musketeers" forth as
"evidence" that the rapier is a missile weapon!

I hesitate to send this as it serves no purpose than my own amusement
but WTH.
Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm, as
one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern" fencer
using an orthotic? grip so this may be outside your experience.
Consider that you or I may not know everything. There is a much larger
body of knowledge that we don't know we don't know than that which we
know and know we don't know combined. So chill out.

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> And sword canes were, of course, the predominant duelling weapon? Or were
> they more of a sideshow?

NO! I never said that! I responded to your assertion that a foil was
not used nor would it ever be used by any rational person as a weapon of
choice. Sword canes were commonly carried throughout Europe and North
America after the open carrying of a small sword was no longer
considered fashionable. Fashion and convenience have played a part in
the development and use of the sword as well as other weapons.

A modern analogy would be to firearms. The open carry of firearms,
though perfectly legal in many places is generally frowned upon and
practitioners are often harassed. So, we accommodate; better to have
the small conceal able .25 in your pocket when trouble arises than wish
for the .44 magnum at home in the safe. Both can save your life though
the .25 could be considered a less effective compromise to "fashion".

>>As to Arturo Perez-Reverte's The Fencing Master. I offer it not as
>>evidence or even as accurate in its portrayal of swordsmanship but as
>>a possible example of the use of a "foil" as an effective killing
>>weapon. What the mind conceives the hand may achieve.
>>Also an enjoyable read and interesting film.
>
>
> Therefore, one should likewise put the Disney "Musketeers" forth as
> "evidence" that the rapier is a missile weapon!

Sure, why not? Villains always threw their guns at Superman. Clearly
Superman thought this more dangerous as he always ducked. So why not
toss your rapier?

The above statement has as much to do with your comment as your comment
has to do with this discussion and you are clearly closed minded to
"disagreeable" ideas, information or opinion.

No need to respond. We are just going in circles.

I hesitate to send this as it serves no purpose than my own amusement
but WTH.
Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm, as
one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern" fencer
using an orthotic? grip so this may be outside your experience.
Consider that you or I may not know everything. There is a much larger
body of knowledge that we don't know we don't know than that which we
know and know we don't know combined. So chill out.

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> And sword canes were, of course, the predominant duelling weapon? Or were
> they more of a sideshow?

NO! I never said that! I responded to your assertion that a foil was
not used nor would it ever be used by any rational person as a weapon of
choice. Sword canes were commonly carried throughout Europe and North
America after the open carrying of a small sword was no longer
considered fashionable. Fashion and convenience have played a part in
the development and use of the sword as well as other weapons.

A modern analogy would be to firearms. The open carry of firearms,
though perfectly legal in many places is generally frowned upon and
practitioners are often harassed. So, we accommodate; better to have
the small conceal able .25 in your pocket when trouble arises than wish
for the .44 magnum at home in the safe. Both can save your life though
the .25 could be considered a less effective compromise to "fashion".

>>As to Arturo Perez-Reverte's The Fencing Master. I offer it not as
>>evidence or even as accurate in its portrayal of swordsmanship but as
>>a possible example of the use of a "foil" as an effective killing
>>weapon. What the mind conceives the hand may achieve.
>>Also an enjoyable read and interesting film.
>
>
> Therefore, one should likewise put the Disney "Musketeers" forth as
> "evidence" that the rapier is a missile weapon!

Sure, why not? Villains always threw their guns at Superman. Clearly
Superman thought this more dangerous as he always ducked. So why not
toss your rapier?

The above statement has as much to do with your comment as your comment
has to do with this discussion and you are clearly closed minded to
"disagreeable" ideas, information or opinion.

No need to respond. We are just going in circles.

"R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in news:3E4C3A40.6040004@qwest.net:

> I hesitate to send this as it serves no purpose than my own amusement
> but WTH.
> Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm,
> as one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern"
> fencer using an orthotic?

Wrong again. I've only attempted holding one of those things once, never
actually used one. Not at all to my taste nor would it have been
permitted where I have studied.

"R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> wrote in news:3E4C3A40.6040004@qwest.net:

> I hesitate to send this as it serves no purpose than my own amusement
> but WTH.
> Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm,
> as one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern"
> fencer using an orthotic?

Wrong again. I've only attempted holding one of those things once, never
actually used one. Not at all to my taste nor would it have been
permitted where I have studied.

In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:37:20 -0700
R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>I hesitate to send this as it serves no purpose than my own amusement
>but WTH.
>Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm, as
>one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern" fencer
>using an orthotic? grip so this may be outside your experience.

Bryan? *giggle*

HAve a quick google for his posting record here. Trying to
holier-than-thou the master of it will do you no good.

>Consider that you or I may not know everything. There is a much larger
>body of knowledge that we don't know we don't know than that which we
>know and know we don't know combined. So chill out.

That doesn't allow us to say "this is so" without decent proof.

To say that something is definitely so requires definite knowledge.
To say it might have been so is fine, as long as you don't then base
an argument on it...

Same same parrying after all. That the parry "might" have worked doesnt
do you any good when there's 2 foot of blade in your belly. Base your
fencing on solid blade contact, base your arguments only on what you
definitely know.

Zebee

In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:37:20 -0700
R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>I hesitate to send this as it serves no purpose than my own amusement
>but WTH.
>Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm, as
>one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern" fencer
>using an orthotic? grip so this may be outside your experience.

Bryan? *giggle*

HAve a quick google for his posting record here. Trying to
holier-than-thou the master of it will do you no good.

>Consider that you or I may not know everything. There is a much larger
>body of knowledge that we don't know we don't know than that which we
>know and know we don't know combined. So chill out.

That doesn't allow us to say "this is so" without decent proof.

To say that something is definitely so requires definite knowledge.
To say it might have been so is fine, as long as you don't then base
an argument on it...

Same same parrying after all. That the parry "might" have worked doesnt
do you any good when there's 2 foot of blade in your belly. Base your
fencing on solid blade contact, base your arguments only on what you
definitely know.

Zebee

In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:25:08 GMT
Bryan J. Maloney <cavaggione@sbcglobal.net.spam.must.die.com> wrote:
>zebee@zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote in
>news:slrnb4ovbb.ac1.zebee@zipperii.zip.com.au:
>
>> In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:37:20 -0700
>> R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>I hesitate to send this as it serves no purpose than my own amusement
>>>but WTH.
>>>Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm, as
>>>one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern" fencer
>>>using an orthotic? grip so this may be outside your experience.
>>
>> Bryan? *giggle*
>
>Whenever you do something like that, I always have to do a mental gear-
>shift, since I come from the land where anybody with a name beginning
>"Zeb-" is presumed to be a very rural man...
>

It's OK, sheep don't have to be nervous around me.

Nor does anyone holding a sword after last night's exhibition!

Repeat until learnt: "do not run onto other bod's sword, do not run onto
other bod's sword"...

Zebee
- pincushion.

--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:25:08 GMT
Bryan J. Maloney <cavaggione@sbcglobal.net.spam.must.die.com> wrote:
>zebee@zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote in
>news:slrnb4ovbb.ac1.zebee@zipperii.zip.com.au:
>
>> In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:37:20 -0700
>> R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>I hesitate to send this as it serves no purpose than my own amusement
>>>but WTH.
>>>Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm, as
>>>one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern" fencer
>>>using an orthotic? grip so this may be outside your experience.
>>
>> Bryan? *giggle*
>
>Whenever you do something like that, I always have to do a mental gear-
>shift, since I come from the land where anybody with a name beginning
>"Zeb-" is presumed to be a very rural man...
>

It's OK, sheep don't have to be nervous around me.

Nor does anyone holding a sword after last night's exhibition!

Repeat until learnt: "do not run onto other bod's sword, do not run onto
other bod's sword"...

Zebee
- pincushion.

--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

zebee@zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote in
news:slrnb4ovbb.ac1.zebee@zipperii.zip.com.au:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:37:20 -0700
> R.S.E. <rse2@qwest.net> wrote:
>>I hesitate to send this as it serves no purpose than my own amusement
>>but WTH.
>>Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm, as
>>one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern" fencer
>>using an orthotic? grip so this may be outside your experience.
>
> Bryan? *giggle*

Whenever you do something like that, I always have to do a mental gear-
shift, since I come from the land where anybody with a name beginning
"Zeb-" is presumed to be a very rural man...