Oh my God Bob, in one ill-conceived treatise you have managed to insult almost all my friends. I am saddened you did not take my previous comments in the Christian manner I gave them. You are gifted in prose but lacking in honesty and integrity. As you said before to @RussF, you Bob are probably used to hearing my type of response somewhere in your illustrious career before. This definitely concludes any further correspondence I will be having with you.At the risk of really severe thread drift, I think you may have a good point here, Dan. A recent government study revealed that something like 54% of voting age Americans have reading comprehension abilities below the sixth-grade level. Reading is becoming a lost art, just as we've seen the demise of cursive handwriting in the nation's grammar schools. Audio and video have become the primary information mediums for many in the digital age. I fear I have assumed too much in unconsciously expecting this audience to have had the benefit of a classical liberal arts education which confers an appreciation of the "rules of rhetorical engagement," notably the avoidance of logical fallacies. (See: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_...logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html) I've spent nearly a half century writing adversarial advocacy. I've written many hundreds of thousands of pages of argument in trial and appellate court briefs over the years. In that writing style, it isn't productive to equivocate or apologize for one's argument. It is expected that what one proposes will be vigorously asserted and plausibly maintained. It is taken as a given that opposing views will be similarly vigorously asserted and plausibly maintained. It is expected that rhetorical fallacies are to be avoided at all costs and the focus of discussions remain on the issues rather than on personalities or emotions. As those who have been taught logic and rhetoric, there is a science to arguing. None of it is "personal."
This "kits versus scratch" thing keeps coming up as a continual source of tension among model ship builders. Just last night, I was reading a sixteen-year-old back issue of the Nautical Research Journal with a feature article about the advantages of scratch building over kit building! I was surprised to see the same arguments in favor of scratch building in that article that I've seen made time and again up to the present day. I think it's a matter of opinion, really, since the two activities overlap a great deal, but are really quite different in many ways as well and the differing motivations for favoring either are distinct as well as individually valid. That said, what I find very remarkable is the highly charged reactions that some of the "kit building faction" exhibit whenever the subject rears its ugly head. This group is rather interesting, in that there seems to be a core of "leaders" who are experienced kit builders and often quite active forum participants with a chorus of beginning kit modelers in support and that they will often pick a fight even where no fight existed at all.
Some of the opposition by the "kit faction," is easily explained by self-interest. Some of these individuals are kit and aftermarket modeling product manufacturers, or shills for them, and their opposition is economically motivated. They are just protecting their "rice bowls." There seems to be another subset of "anti-scratchers," though, whose motives at first mystified me. After some observation and analysis, one explanation became clearer. These people are reacting with fear. They can't discuss the issue in any context without getting inordinately emotionally involved and, regrettably, often devolving quickly to ad hominem attacks and incoherent arguments, many of which are based upon some sort of New Age twisted egalitarianism that posits that not only does everybody have a right to their own opinion, but they also have a right to their own facts. This is how people who feel inadequate, whether justified or not, react when their adequacies are challenged, actually, or in their own imagination. Such challenges very realistically, in their minds, at least, threaten their self-identities. When one defines themself as a "ship modeler" because they build ship model kits, and somebody likens building ship model kits to coloring "paint-by-number kits" or "frozen TV dinners," or even intimating that scratch building might be an even slightly higher level of ship modeling, they can't help but feel as if somebody just accused them of being something less than they have identified themselves as being. They can't discuss the subject without feeling threatened. This is where their otherwise odd assertions of "discouraging others" and "gatekeeping" come from. I suppose, when dealing with this level of craziness, the reaction scratch building proponents get is to be expected and, significantly, it cannot be expected that they will be mollified by any amount of reassurance, qualification, or disclaiming. The bottom line is that as long as there is such a thing as scratch building model ships, its very existence is, in any comparison with kit building, going to necessarily manifest the inherent inferiorities of the latter.
I found it interesting that at one point some objected to what they perceived as a more "academic" approach to ship modeling with comments such as, "It's not the naval academy." and the like. My assertion that being able read lines drawings and know basic nomenclature were essential skills for serious ship modelers drew howls far beyond any reasonable expectation and, oddly, I thought, were characterized as "arrogant." In retrospect, I realize I didn't consider that there may be those who are highly invested in seeing themselves as "ship modelers" and lack the confidence to engage in intellectual pursuits I was promoting. For such folks, I guess saying, "If you want to be a ship modeler, you need to learn how to do these things." can easily be equated to being told they aren't smart enough to be ship modelers. That's very unfortunate and, of course not true, but it's an internal issue they are going to have to resolve themselves. Forward momentum is lost when we let the slowest soldier call the cadence.
Regrettably, when driven by an imagined existential threat posed by anyone who might be "better" than they are, people become the sworn enemies of the "better," and advocates for the "good enough" and the "all the same." In their charge to defend against any qualitative comparison in which they fear coming up short, they seek to destroy the "risk" of any qualitative comparisons at all. When the measure of quality becomes impossible, we've lost our bearings entirely. This entire discussion is, in many ways, a microcosm of our larger society. We've become so afraid of stepping on toes that we've paralyzed ourselves. In our effort not to hurt others' feelings, which is a good thing, although often necessary, we've lost sight entirely of the fact that organisms which fail to react to change go extinct.