Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Could the eyelash mark originate from Vienna ?

Jim McDougall · 27th October 2009, 02:25 AM

Hi Gonzalo,
Thank you very much for your very clearly well thought out and eloquently worded comments in response to my posts and comments. There is absolutely no need to apoligize for any delays in response as I am well aware of your circumstances in computer access and admire your tenacity in your efforts.
Actually I dont believe there is, as you note, anything disrespectful about polemic approaches to any presented opinions or discussion reviewing stated material on any topic. I completely agree that the venerable scholars that have provided the benchmarks for our pursuits in the serious study of historic weapons and thier development should be admired and respected. Further, it is clear that, as you well put, new research often reveals that previously held views are sometimes proven incorrect.

Simply put, I agree that it is good to question theories, hypothesis or observations in discussion in order to reaffirm thier validity and the elements of evidence in support of them. Conversely, if questions are presented, they too should be supported by evidence that constructively offers some proof that these are somehow of questionable validity.

Certainly you have noted some comments I have made that perhaps may have been better worded, such as my note regarding the work of highly respected scholars as 'well documented evidence'. I agree that academically I should not hold these works as 'evidence', however, at a personal level, and having known a number of these men at that level, you can understand how respect might dictate such thoughts. I am sure that the late Mr. Norman, who was indeed one of them, would welcome such documented information to correct any errors in his work.

I believe that we here are all interested in advancing our knowledge on the history and development of arms and armour, and I am ever amazed at the wonderful weapons, material and observations presented here. I honestly welcome all entries in discussion, but prefer to remain on topic in constructively developing information that better helps us in evaluating evidence and observations.

I return your kind comments regarding my posts and will say that your input here is equally helpful to myself and others, and as always, the object is to learn together, as you know. It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed expected, for there to be some degree of dispute in discussions or debates. What is important is that here we are gentlemen, as you clearly represent, and proceed accordingly to continue advancing our ever growing base of knowledge.

All very best regards,
Jim

P.S. LOL!! Save me a spot there in the Cambridge Library!!! I think I need to be there too!!

27th October 2009, 02:25 AM	#21
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,757	Hi Gonzalo, Thank you very much for your very clearly well thought out and eloquently worded comments in response to my posts and comments. There is absolutely no need to apoligize for any delays in response as I am well aware of your circumstances in computer access and admire your tenacity in your efforts. Actually I dont believe there is, as you note, anything disrespectful about polemic approaches to any presented opinions or discussion reviewing stated material on any topic. I completely agree that the venerable scholars that have provided the benchmarks for our pursuits in the serious study of historic weapons and thier development should be admired and respected. Further, it is clear that, as you well put, new research often reveals that previously held views are sometimes proven incorrect. Simply put, I agree that it is good to question theories, hypothesis or observations in discussion in order to reaffirm thier validity and the elements of evidence in support of them. Conversely, if questions are presented, they too should be supported by evidence that constructively offers some proof that these are somehow of questionable validity. Certainly you have noted some comments I have made that perhaps may have been better worded, such as my note regarding the work of highly respected scholars as 'well documented evidence'. I agree that academically I should not hold these works as 'evidence', however, at a personal level, and having known a number of these men at that level, you can understand how respect might dictate such thoughts. I am sure that the late Mr. Norman, who was indeed one of them, would welcome such documented information to correct any errors in his work. I believe that we here are all interested in advancing our knowledge on the history and development of arms and armour, and I am ever amazed at the wonderful weapons, material and observations presented here. I honestly welcome all entries in discussion, but prefer to remain on topic in constructively developing information that better helps us in evaluating evidence and observations. I return your kind comments regarding my posts and will say that your input here is equally helpful to myself and others, and as always, the object is to learn together, as you know. It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed expected, for there to be some degree of dispute in discussions or debates. What is important is that here we are gentlemen, as you clearly represent, and proceed accordingly to continue advancing our ever growing base of knowledge. All very best regards, Jim P.S. LOL!! Save me a spot there in the Cambridge Library!!! I think I need to be there too!!