2008 Weapons Policy?

[nliedel]

Security are the nice folks in the blue berets. Any cast member can find a member of security too. Cast members should be easy to pick out. they're always the ones running to be at their next spot.

[maelstrom0370]

If you decide to carry a weapon, use your bean.  Take responsibility for it.
If you're not comfortable or don't think you can handle the responsibility, then go to faire as you always have, sans weapon!
I dunno...seems like a pretty straight-forward thing to me.

Boy - we can even put that arguement in to a proper form!!

Would you prefer Modus Ponens form:

If you carry a weapon, you choose to accept reponsibility for it.
You choose to accept responsibility for it.
You carry a weapon.

Or, the Modus Tollens form:

If you carry a weapon, you choose to accept responsibility for it.
You choose not to accept responsibility for it.
You do not carry a weapon.

ROTFLMAO!!!!   

Can I have some popcorn too?  With lots of butter, if you don't mind.

I can haz make sense now?

[nliedel]

When forum arguments, not just here, but on a lot of forums, move to the point of arguing for the sake of argument, someone will remark they want popcorn, sometimes with butter. Just like at the movies, it becomes a form of entertainment to watch this sort of thing move around like an out of control snake. Twisting and turning in various directions and getting so convoluted, the snake knots hopelessly. Of course one can never quite unknot said snake. How's that for an analogy? I've not had my coffee yet.

[Carl]

Last year I just drilled a hole through the scabbard and sword and riveted them together.Showed the gentleman at the gate the sword could not be drawn and was let right in ,my frog hides the rivet.The sword was a 35 dollar special off of ebay and I get compliments all the time on how good it looks. Also Lord Dorian makes some great fake swords great metal hilts all different designs attached to a wood scabbard you cannot tell them from a real sword. All my good swords are on the wall in my armory awaiting the fall of civilization as we know it.

[Margaret]

I can haz make sense now?

Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens are fancy schmancy terms describing 'valid arguement forms' in philosophy.

Modus Ponens goes like this: 

If A then B
B (occurs or is)
_____________
A (must occur or be)

Go here for the Wiki entry on Modus Ponens:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_Ponens.


Modus Tollens is sort of related to the Modus Ponens form but this form depends on the denial of the B premise:   

If A then B
Not B
_____________
Not A

Wiki link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

They are arguements we use in everyday life without sticking the fancy schmacy lables on them.

If I dood it, I get in troublz.  I dood it!!  I gets in troublez!!  There is a Modus Ponens form.   

If he committed the crime, his fingerprint will match the one taken from the crimescene.  The fingerprint does not match.  He did not commit the crime.   Modus Tollens comin' right at ya.

Ah, philosophy and weapons all on an early Sunday morn.  Is there anything better.   

[maelstrom0370]

Nliedel - LOL thanks...I actually GOT the popcorn reference and I think that was the ONLY  part I understood! 

Margaret - Wow!...just...wow!

[Margaret]

*snort*  Don't be too impressed - I was just showing off how anyone can uses fancy schmachy words.

I was a teacher's assistant for a few years.  The prof. I helped taught Philosophy 100 and some of it rubbed off.   

[pineridge]

here's some philosifisin' for ya!

If a sword is peace-tied in the middle of the forest, and it's tie is broken,,, does it make a noise?


illegitimus non carborundum est' !!

[L Dale Walter]

Klingons are just fine.  As long as you don't come dressed as part of some troll gang, then...  Oh.  *er*  Nevermind.    

Oh come on you loved TROLLAPALOOZA and you know it.  It was just too stupid not to do once.

That's where L Dale Walter and many of us on this thread are coming from. We've been out there---many of us for multiple years--and have seen the crazy, totally irrational, completely random stuff people will do.

Remember in 2001 when the girl took off her artificial leg and hit me with it?  Yeah, that actually happened...

And, gee, Dale.... you're retiring already? Aren't you a little young yet? I mean, really-- I think you've got at least a couple more good months left in you. 

I am old enough to know when enough is enough.  Time to do other things.

slightly more seriously (but only slightly)...I think the Klingon is more your style. You're too tall to be a troll. But at least you can re-use the teeth!

Again, TROLLAPALOOZA was just too stupid of an idea not to make it happen, once.  I think my favorite moment was accusing QE of "Racial Profiling" while we were in jail.  Classic.

Must go to bed.  Built a joust field today.  STUPID AUGER!  STUPID ROCKS!

LDW

[Lord Pumpernickel]

When I just use the word statistics I actually refer to probability based of a priori argument. And of course I based currently used probability on on theorized rational events that could bare a weapon that is pieced tied and the physical requirements for that occur. For example starting from most probable to least (assuming weapons are properly pieced tied): Someone cuts your tie, tie locking mechanism fails, you accidentally cut your tie, the tie's molecular structure breaks down and evaporates away.

I'm not a statitician, but it sounds like you're applying statistical theory to this -- One could easily leap to the conclusion that you so readily apply theory to this argument because you lack actual experience.

You are completely right in the terms but I refuse to use the word theory because it is so distorted in the laymen terms I can not use the word and them assume the right meaning is applied.

Also anecdotal evidence is never enough there must be some better empirical evidence that supports there claim. Although I do believe them and do not deny their fundamental claim I can not practice absolutism under the currant argument.

[Lord Pumpernickel]

Although I dare not agree with your reasoning and and precautions of carrying a weapon into faire. I do believe that it is an over statement of the natural reality. To put forth the statistics/physics and apply mathematics to the possibility of someone else stealing your weapon while peace tied is minimum and nearly ignorable. To think someone will steal your blade while peaced tied is stupid and irrational.

Hahaha I like that quote. This is were my scientific based philosophy comes in. If test were actually done and experiments completed I would most likely refer to them as studies show, experiments show, or evidence shows depending on the creditability. When I just use the word statistics I actually refer to probability based of a priori argument. And of course I based currently used probability on on theorized rational events that could bare a weapon that is pieced tied and the physical requirements for that occur. For example starting from most probable to least (assuming weapons are properly pieced tied): Someone cuts your tie, tie locking mechanism fails, you accidentally cut your tie, the tie's molecular structure breaks down and evaporates away. Then applying Octum's razor it would it is easy to say the a priori statistics that I used.

A better example of why this can work, statistically the chance of the earth blowing up and very rare. Doing the work on a priori bases I doubt you will need actual test done to support that statistic.

Of course a priori arguments are weak and subject to change given any a posteriori argument shows otherwise.

Lord P, if you want to look in your college textbooks and regurgitate terms and refer to studies as a way of supporting your arguments, I'm sure there is a thread for that somewhere but it isn't this one. 

I know it isn't and I try to refrain from using it but when I try to make a small joke then someone replays with an attack I have the right to defend myself which I did. Although it involved philosophy it was part of my defense.

If you want to have a philosophical debate, I would be happy to indulge you in person but not in this format.  I would be much more appreciative if you were making your own arguments based on your own knowledge instead of trying to baffle people with obscure terms like Occam's Razor (which you misspelled by the way; It's not "Octum" it's Occam or Ockham's Razor.  Ockham after Sir William of Ockham for whom it is named.)  People here are open to others' honest thoughts and opinions but I for one do not have much patience for anyone that tries to make himself look like a genius by talking above others.  When someone does that, it appears more like someone who is trying to over compensate or impress rather than true intelligence.     

I understand, also I apologize for misspelling Ockham he is a great man and I should have never done that. Also you have have to understand that the terms I use I believe people should use and understand if not then it should entice people to do some research like it has to me. I was not tought about Ockham's razor by a teacher instead I heard it once then researched what it actually was. I practice a non self focused form of philosophy that involves destroying any form of self importance. My words only have the intention displaying my thoughts. If people assume I am smart, naive, stupid, or normal from them then so be it. I do not and probably will never claim to be intelligent all I know and will discusses on this matter is what I know.


I have had the displeasure of working for a boss for several years now who has a doctorate in philosophy.  He does the same thing and it is no fun to talk to him either.  He also tries to impress people with big words and obscure references, which only puts people off. 

I's sorry that you feel that way. What he does should encourage you to learn and study. For all I know if someone produces metaphors, ideology, or arguments I know nothing of I will not be discouraged by them instead seek and learn what I can to understand

Be yourself and stop trying so hard to show that you are intelligent.  If you are a truly intelligent person, others will recognize that by hearing YOUR ideas and thoughts.  If you want to "apply Ockham's Razor" (the core idea of which is that "the simplest explanation is usually the best"), apply it to your posts and simply explain your opinion without clouding it up with far fetched analogies or references to "a priori" versus "a posteriori" statistics.  None of us needs a statistics or philosophy lesson.           

I am myself ask anyone who hangs around me and they will see no abnormality in my arguments. I displayed my ideas and thought on this very topic and got a lot of rebuttal against them and then when I tried to defend myself you are the only one who keeps attacking me. I then tried to further defend myself using what words and knowledge I know and now I get attacked for my vocabulary. I am sorry my vocab may be different but it is who I am. A lot of people need a statistics/philosophy lesson that is true but that a different debate which does not belong on this forum. I only used a priori and a posteriori because they are the best words to use to further explain my argument you keep attacking. I tried to refrain from using them but when no other words fit what am I to do? My entire post you quoted only exist so that I may defend my view it in no way has any intention to make people think I am smart, intelligent, or wise.

[Margaret]

I only used a priori and a posteriori because they are the best words to use to further explain my argument you keep attacking. I tried to refrain from using them but when no other words fit what am I to do?

What are you to do?  First off, please learn to use the quote brackets correctly - it will make your responses easier to read.

Second - if you wish to defend yourself using jargon or wish to use that jargon so that people will join in a debate with you, at least provide a definition of that term.

[L Dale Walter]

Second - if you wish to defend yourself using jargon or wish to use that jargon so that people will join in a debate with you, at least provide a definition of that term.

OR they could just have a swordfight!  How cool would that be?  See if Maria can get it on the grid!

L. Dale (Now throwing dynamite in the fire) Walter

[Margaret]

OR they could just have a swordfight!  How cool would that be?  See if Maria can get it on the grid!

L. Dale (Now throwing dynamite in the fire) Walter

/takes a fire extinguisher to Dale and hoses him down with it...

Easy there big guy.   

Although, there is the bunny fencing area.....    Dale, you may be on to something!!

[LadyMeg]

*pops in to chant* Bunny Fencing!  Bunny Fencing!  *pops out to safety*