19th Alberta Dragoons 1908p sword

[David R]

Originally Posted by fernando

Gentlemen, remember that the scope of our forum does not reach World Wars period .


.

Does this need rethinking, and perhaps making the cutoff one hundred years ago, 1922 or perhaps more logically 1914 as that's when the old world went up in flames.

[fernando]

Options David !
We have chosen to focus more on arms antiquity rather than on modern wars.

[Jim McDougall]

Noted. The primary concern when this forum was initiated in 2008 was that opening the discussion criteria to European arms of all times and to include firearms, ordnance, polearms, etc. might open the doors to more modern 'militaria'.
The idea of bayonets and misc , weapons of the modern wars in WWI & WWII which might even lead into nazi items etc. was concerning as detracting from the antiquarian discussions.

As has been described, these concerns are often confining as many weapons of earlier periods up to 1898 ended up being used, and in many cases still being produced after 1900, even into 20s and 30s.
In studying the history of many of these kinds of weapons forms, their scope of historical data often transcends the fixed terminus post quem of 1900.
The problem here of course becomes that the 'complete' history of the weapon form and its use comes to an abrupt and incomplete halt.

There is no 'volume II' to continue study of the form, nor proper venue for same, and any extenuation of such circumstances is held to endanger forum integrity by opening doors for more such situations.

This is truly a dilemma, and I decided to continue the discussion on M1913 Patton sword in the misc. forum, where the latitude is non confining as this is indeed a misc. category (non applicable in the other forums).

While this is more of a stopgap solution, I hope members who have ideas for solution might present them but privately to moderators, with whom the resolution is in their charge. I would hope to see this dilemma resolved constructively, and trust we will all follow that.

[fernando]

Jim, i was actually addressing David; but i can not say i appreciate the way you interpreted the scope of the forum, moulding the text in order to defend your personal point of view. We have been through this issue a zillion times by direct email. The Euro forum is not only about swords; the 19th century cutt off is more than reasonable when it concerns firearms, as far as antique arms are concerned.
Forgiving me for finding that, the way you have finalized your post, advicing members to contact moderators, you sound like you are trying to stir the pot.

All the best.
Fernando.

[Will M]

Seems I began this, it's been years since I've read the posting regulations and this time I'm off by eight years. What you think you know and actually know can be two different animals!

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Will M

Seems I began this, it's been years since I've read the posting regulations and this time I'm off by eight years. What you think you know and actually know can be two different animals!

Will, the question is not the eight years but the expanding to a different (20th century) wide universe; world wars, modernity, militaria, etc. Naturally exceptions may be understood, specially when they are dealt in context.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Jim, i was actually addressing David; but i can not say i appreciate the way you interpreted the scope of the forum, moulding the text in order to defend your personal point of view. We have been through this issue a zillion times by direct email. The Euro forum is not only about swords; the 19th century cutt off is more than reasonable when it concerns firearms, as far as antique arms are concerned.
Forgiving me for finding that, the way you have finalized your post, advicing members to contact moderators, you sound like you are trying to stir the pot.

All the best.
Fernando.

Unfortunately Fernando, I thought I was wording this in SUPPORT of YOUR position in understanding that there must be reasonable parameters in regulating the topic content. My suggestion to use private contact to discuss suggestions was to avoid a public .......match on this thread. That is why I mentioned hoping for constructive suggestions to find possible solutions for exceptions if such were possible.
The cutoff is I suppose necessary of course, but you can see my concerns on some topics. So now I understand the swords stipulation is in accord with firearms topic restrictions although the concerns are different but must be managed together.

My intention was support, and I had intended to contact you privately, but respond here in kind.

I withdraw my suggestion for members to place suggestions in any form, and recognize the case is closed. I did not realize this was pot stirring and there is no reason to discuss further.