--- Flanconade@... wrote:
> Brian says the above is unclear. It is the only place I mention sport
> fencing. The last 'graph in the definition, too.
>
And I do feel that this portion of the definition could have been more precise,
because it wasn't abundently clear what you meant by the phrase "catastrophic
reaction to the Enlightenment". Plus, the tone of this section left something
to be desired (it appeared a judgment on sport fencing, more than an attempt to
clearly define classical fencing).

If your intent is to define what classical fencing is, then there are far
better and more precise ways to do so. Certainly, without drawing conclusions
about what is or is not "good" fencing; if anything, in the past, I think I've
been rather willing to acknowledge what is not good about sport fencing. So, I
do take some affront to your characterization of my comments, and feel you do
me a disservice in this respect.


> Did anybody read the whole thing?
>
Yes, and I honestly felt it was in general a very good attempt at a definition.
In fact, I found myself liking several things that you pointed out in an
attempt to define what classical fencing is, and what sets it apart from both
historical and sport fencing. Which I liked, strange as it may seem to you I'm
sure. I think it helps the community distinquish between the various periods
in fencing, as well as give it a stronger sense of identity.

But, what I didn't like is what I perceived as a slight of sport fencing in the
process of making your definition; which I felt did the definition of classical
fencing a disservice. I think that your definition could do without any kind
of "conclusion" on what is "good" fencing or what should be considered "good"
fencing. Trying to attach some judgment to the definition simply takes away
from it as a whole and makes it less a definition and more an opinion.

In this sense, I think you do better by making your definition non-judgmental
of any other type of fencing and just simply focusing on what the community
generally has accepted for identifying classical fencing and what caused the
change in fencing that ultimately resulted in sport fencing.


> Until "postmodernists" informed by irrationalists like Nietzsche...
>
All I'm going to say is that no where in any of my comments (past or present),
at any point in time, have I made any valuation of the Enlightenment period in
philosophy and thinking, especially a negative one. Personally, I've read many
different philosophers from many different periods, and while I may disagree
with some of their conclusions, I certainly avoid attaching any judgment of
them. Especially in conversations such as this.


> 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.
>
No, what I said was that your assertion that there was a "cultural shift" that
caused sport fencing to splinter off from classical fencing was more opinion
that fact. That is, this "catastrophic reaction". While I may be willing to
acknowledge some influences on fencing that may have attributed to these
"cultural shifts", and won't argue on this point, this is hard for people to
identify with. In that respect, I don't think you've made enough of a case
that this was the cause of changes in fencing that separate classical fencing
from sport fencing.

I think more people can readily identify with the three things I've mentioned
as being the primary cause of the shift from classical to sport. In fact, I
think most of the community agrees with these three things:

1.) Introduction of modern scoring equipment.
2.) Changes in the rules on right-of-way through the years.
3.) De-emphasis on the practical application of fencing technique to duels.

None of these things are value judgments on sport fencing or classical fencing
at all; if anything, these are very neutral judgments that we all can accept as
fact. Afterall, in 1936, epee began to be scored electronically. Foil
followed shortly thereafter (sabre took a lot longer). Right-of-way rules have
definitely shifted over the years (I don't remember if we were able to really
narrow down when this occured, but definitely that it was subsequent to the
introduction of electric equipment), moving completely away from the "extended"
arm to the "extending" arm. And finally, since dueling and fighting with
sharps ended some time ago, there's definitely been less stressing of the
martial practice of fencing; which we certainly can attest as resulted in very
different actions being common in sport fencing.

Like I said to you privately, my comment was really only truly meant to improve
upon your definition and really focus in on stuff that the community can
understand and grasp. Not to mention, trying to ensure the definition was as
neutral as possible and thus better served the community. I'm sorry if you
took it to be otherwise, but my intent was not to be critical of your
definition as a whole; just help to tweak one piece I felt was lacking.


-Brian