In einer eMail vom 3/3/2006 11:07:01 PM W. Europe Standard Time schreibt
bdschenck@...:

"Although challenged by 19th century romantism, the fundamental concepts of
foil were the ground of all good fencing until the mid-20th century's
catastrophic reaction to the Enlightenment and a consequent break with
tradition by sport fencing."
I mention sport fencing once after giving an extended definition of
classical fencing. Heaven help me! But I can't resist.

Brian says the above is unclear. It is the only place I mention sport
fencing. The last 'graph in the definition, too.

Please help me: Does his demurrer mean that sport fencing has not abandoned
tradition?

Is sport fencing good fencing? If it is, why are we here?

Did anybody read the whole thing?

Why is this such a big deal? The mid-20th century was a catastrophe. Heck,
1914-1945, the whole kit and kaboodle, was a disaster for whole
mega-millions of people. Until "postmodernists" informed by irrationalists
like
Nietzsche or Nazis like Heidegger came along and attacked it, the Enlightenment
was
seen as a pretty good thing except by monarchists in France, fascist
intellectuals in Germany, Italy, France, and US reactionaries with bow ties and
tweed
jackets. Core Western values and all that. They're now bad? Gimme a
working better alternative on the strip or in real life, please.

This is a trip. I thought people'd go nuts because I said rapier wasn't
classical. I care about classical fencing. I didn't do so by opposing
classical and sport fencing. I did so with a complex and compressed statement
about
what classical fencing IS, not just what it is not. I don't care if people
run at each other and turn on a light. I really don't guys. But if you tell
me "classical fencing" didn't grow out a reaction to the sport scene, why, I
must be ready for the guys in the white coats. Brian says it's all
opinion...well...One irrationalist outcome in pop culture these days--and
surveys show
this--is that university students cannot tell the distinction between an
assertion and an argument.. ..It's a talk radio kinda thing, too.

I really don't care whether sport fencing made a bunch of folks unhappy so
they became classical fencers. Although it did, and that's a fact, not
"opinion," or the stack of books, clippings, magazines, printed web pages and
stuff in this room are all in my head. But I don't care about tha all that
much.
I care what "classical fencing" is and what it is or can or should be
premised on.

But...Yea! A debate!

Bill Leckie
_flanconade@..._ (mailto:flanconade@...)







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]