This mask is SICK!!

Discussion in 'Armory - Q&A' started by fatfencer, May 16, 2011.

  1. SJCFU#2

    SJCFU#2 Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,582
    Location:
    MD
    I've been hoping that this argument would simply die out as the various parties agreed to disagree (it seems unlikely that anyone is ever likely to convince Inq to alter his stance, nor is he likely to gain many converts to his own point of view). However the argument is threatening to spill over into this thread and rather than allow that I felt it better to redirect it back to this thread, with the following additional point:

    Unless I'm mistaken Inq's argument is based on the use of the word "uniform" in both the BFA and USFA rules, where it is used in T.45.4.b), M.25, M.25.3.e) in reference to a "national uniform" (the word "uniform" also appears in m8.6 and m.16.2 however I suspect that even Inq would acknowledge that in both of these instances the word is used as an adjective rather than a noun).

    The problem with Inq's argument is that the word "uniforme" doesn't appear anywhere in the applicable sections of the "THE STANDARD" for the written rules (i.e the French-language version of the FIE rules). The rules dealing with the appearance of individual fencers (t.45.4.b) and m.25) generally refer to it simply as "la tenue nationale". Given that the French-language version of the rules doesn't use the word "uniforme" it's difficult to place any particular significance on the use of its English language equivalent in translations of the rules.

    I suppose that Inq could continue to argue that the word "uniforme" does appear in the Appendix to the Material Section however that would be quite a stretch, even by his standards (especially since those standards were only added to the rules about 25 years ago). He could also argue that the word "uniform" appears in various notes within the USFA rules which either waive or modify certain FIE rules for USFA competition however since these notes only apply to USFA events it is difficult to see how they can be considered representative of the fencing community as a whole.
     
  2. Gav

    Gav is a Verified Fencing ExpertGav Moderator!!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2000
    Messages:
    3,525
    Location:
    Scotland
    I think this thread has won the Fnet stupidity award.

    Well done fellas I'm proud of you.

    In case anyone is wondering click here to see what I think! Ta.
     
  3. fatfencer

    fatfencer Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,992
    Location:
    AZ
    This is the 2nd painted fencing mask thread I've started over the years; it's also the 2nd time it was ruined by Inq's whinings. How about people submit cool fencing masks they've seen rather than argue over something that really doesn't matter? http://www.pointedcomments.com/masks.htm
     
  4. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    37,164
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    Impossible!

    OK, here's another. Third photo, and this one may capture more people's attention than the other.

    Are these people wearing a uniform?

    I can stipulate without looking at them that they show people wearing distinctive attire with individually-chosen differentiators if you like. Of course, if that is accurate it makes them...not uniforms. But anyway.

    And hey, ridicule is a great way to cover unwillingness to run any risk of having one's cherished beliefs proven wrong. I have employed it myself from time to time. Glad to see that I am not alone.

    No it's not. I have no intention of continuing beyond my initial remark there. ( Unless unbearably provoked, that is. )


    No, I'm referring to the appendices to the Material Rules, where you will find such phrases as "The method which is the subject of this standard is intended to determine the resistance against perforation of cloth used to make up fencing uniforms." No restriction to "national" uniform, and definitely used as a noun.


    Why? Inasmuch as the Material Rules are exactly where one would expect to find the rules regarding materials used in the sport...

    As for the historical angle...do we ignore or wave away as nouveau the many Amendments to the US Constitution because they were not part of the original document?

    How long were the earliest rules for fencing? One page? So everything added after that is unworthy of consideration? A rule must be of hoary age in order to be a rule? This is a peculiar stance to assume, if you will allow me to say so...


    Oh, you poor thing, having your wonderful threads ruined by people who dare not to like them or to disagree with you! There, there!
     
  5. erooMynohtnA

    erooMynohtnA Podium

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,990
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    As I am the only one who has participated in your little thought experiment, the pot is certainly leveling quite the charge at the kettle. If there were any substance to your socratic (or aristotelian?) exercise, you wouldn't need a multitude of people to answer that the cheerleaders are wearing uniforms, because the argument could stand on its own. As such, you do need it, so you can surprise someone when your "because I say so" jumps out, swathed in the camouflage of rhetoric.

    Anyway, prove me wrong by completing your riddle, or don't. I think it's a further waste of time to ask people if they think these are uniforms, since you're the one seeking an exclusive definition. In case I wasn't explicit enough before, each cheerleader is wearing a uniform. All the cheerleaders are wearing uniforms. And all the cheerleaders are wearing a uniform.
     
  6. fatfencer

    fatfencer Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,992
    Location:
    AZ
    Yes well, its quite a bother. People who are wrong and disagreeing. verily I say unto thee that eugenics doesn't sound so bad to me after being on this forum for so long.

    You have no opinion that isn't constructed of some misapplied latin fallacy, no argument that can be construed as anything other than a rehashing of someone else's substance-less criticism. And you have been shown, repeatedly, by people other than myself as well as myself that you are incorrect in a position you yourself advanced. There is NO absolute standard on how homogeneous a uniform must be to be a uniform. Only the one you have divined lovingly from your arse.

    In sum, your latin musings are merely a femtometer of ****e-spread on a cracker equally devoid of argumentative nourishment. you are the soylent green sans-vitamin of f-net.


    can we please get back to examples of well painted masks?
     
  7. NGV

    NGV Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2000
    Messages:
    317
    Inquartata obviously can't help himself; the real problem is that people reply to him. There's apparently no chance that anyone will get Inq to admit he was wrong, and there's definitely no chance that Inq will ever convince anyone else that he's right. So what's the point of responding?


    I think masks with designs on the face generally look pretty weird, are distracting, and probably shouldn't be encouraged. On the other hand, the side of the mask seems like a good place for some decoration - club or country inisignias, or other designs. This is especially the case for the Leon Paul X-Change masks, which ordinarily look like something from a no-budget 1950s sci-fi movie.

    For example, I'm not sure what the designs on the side of Mattern's mask are in this photo, but they definitely make the LP mask look less goofy than usual.

    http://usfencing.org/multimedia/photo_gallery/2341/photo/64568#gallery-header
     
  8. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Hollywood, ca USA
    Sure...they're wearing the clothing designated for then to wear while in performance....it's not MUCH clothing (which is not bad in this case), but it's still the uniform of the squad.

    And allow me to point out that at least I looked at your example, as have a few others....kindly do me the same courtesy. You can't have it both ways.
     
  9. foibles

    foibles Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,011
    Location:
    Central Coastal California
    [​IMG]

    Discuss.
     
  10. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Hollywood, ca USA
    Guy 2nd from left looks like he should be working either the Castro in San Francisco or West Hollywood....
     
  11. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    37,164
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    Congratulations! You have just "proven" that the whole Socratic method is useless, because it's "unnecessary". Well done! It only took a couple of thousand years for someone to do that. None of the great thinkers or logicians ever managed it, so it's quite an accomplishment for you. :rolleyes:

    Well, I won't bother to explain the purpose of the method, since you have made up your mind already ( the same fault of which I am so often accused ). Far be it from me to bother you with, you know, long accepted and legitimate forms of argumentation, which you have decided are neither...

    Yes, and especially when they are committed to believing that any congeries of garments qualifies, or that there IS no definition if it doesn't agree with their own personal wishes to look "sick"... :rolleyes:

    So I believe that I will go with "don't", since there's no point wasting further words banging against a stone wall.

    ( At least until the next time someone posts a breathlessly admiring photo or description of a non-uniform bit of gear. )


    Since you have shown many times that you have no clear understanding of what is and is not a fallacy, Latin-named or otherwise, it's no more than amusing that you still witter on as though you do. :D


    And another person weighs in to assert that "Inq is wrong". Pity that it isn't a matter of majority rule, isn't it?

    The boulder through which none of you can plow is that uniforms are, in fact, uniform, and must be so from the very nature of the word. If it comforts you to squeeze your eyes shut and stop your ears and insist otherwise in order to justify your personal preferences for ego satisfaction in dress, well, far be it from me to deny you such comfort... :blah:
     
  12. erooMynohtnA

    erooMynohtnA Podium

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,990
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Says the guy who thought he would disprove hundreds of years of empirically confirmed physics by looking at youtube videos. I didn't say that the socratic method is useless, and I don't believe it has a minimum requirement for respondents either. I have given you the answer you need to continue, unless, as I surmise, I haven't given you whatever misstep you were looking to capitalize on. Then, by all means, prattle on about how no one is giving you a fair shake.
     
  13. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    37,164
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    Right. So this
    doesn't really mean what it says?

    And prefaced by a tu quoque into the bargain. Such an improvement...

    But then, it's all about what I expected. I have never seen a Socratic argument work for anyone, certainly not in the polite, cooperative way Plato claims the dialogues played out---people are too committed to their own positions to risk having them refuted, and will either refuse to answer at all or will worry and quibble and hedge at every question until it's pointless to go further.
     
  14. erooMynohtnA

    erooMynohtnA Podium

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,990
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    You're right. I was totally uncooperative when I gave a plain yes with no qualifiers.

    As bolded above, I said you don't need multiple people, because the argument can stand without them. You needed one (which you don't really, a la Galileo), and you have it. Continue to ignore it.
     
  15. fatfencer

    fatfencer Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,992
    Location:
    AZ
     
  16. fatfencer

    fatfencer Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,992
    Location:
    AZ
    Or its perhaps because he was better at it than you and you have all the subtlety of an elephant that was kicked in the nuts.
     
  17. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    37,164
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    I have one, but numerous doubters. Who, even should the exercise convince you, would still---

    Sigh. Never mind. If you can't see it, you can't see it.

    Oh, yes, buddy. Everyone recognizes you as the preeminent authority you claim to be. On everything. Clearly. :D


    Very droll! Brother, you should try stand-up. :D
     
  18. fatfencer

    fatfencer Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,992
    Location:
    AZ
    I not that this post is completely devoid of anything that looks like a coherent argument. Nobody believes you. You lose.
     
  19. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    37,164
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    And that's about your only card: Declaring yourself master of all and victor in every fray. :D

    Ah, well. Against such an ego all art is spent in vain. You may have the last word. It's probably the only way to stop you telling us how much you know, at how many things you are the best, and the many things at which you excel...
     

Share This Page