Doyle, as you said, not everyone who reads this board is thoroughly familiar with military terminology, especially when the discussion gets into the technical differences between terms like "sniper" and "marksman". Most people are familiar with the term "sniper", so I have no problem in using that term in general discussions with them on the message board. If their interest goes beyond merely a general understanding of the tactics and terminology of the Civil War, that's the point at which we kick in with the arcane definitions that serious researchers are more comfortable with. Our goal is to help others understand the subject under discussion.

When someone asks about a sharpshooter outfit that their grandpappy served in, and follows up with a question about "sniper" training, I don't feel that's the point at which I should launch into a lecture on the differences between a sniper, a marksman, or a sharpshooter. True, most Confederate sharpshooters didn't cammy up, put on a Ghilli suit, set up a hide, and scan for high-value targets -- but they often did "snipe" at targets like enemy gun crews, pickets, etc. I don't see any problem with using the term "sniper" in that context if the inquiry poses a question using that term.

Many of the questions we get are from 20th century veterans. If it helps to explain a point, I often use 20th century military terms that they'll readily understand -- like "forward-deployed", "maneuver battalion", etc., even those terms were unknown during Civil War. It beats answering with a post twice as long as it needs to be, just to explain terminology.

Of course, when a Civil War expert posts a query, we can throw off the shackles and discuss the issue in the kind of detail we love and he is used to.

I guess what I'm saying here is that, without "talking down" to someone, we should couch our answers in terms they are familiar with.

I love to talk shop with experts like you and Tom, but I don't want to turn this board into a forum for Civil War purists only -- because then we truly are "preaching to the choir", and no one else.

All that being said, however, the neat thing about the way Jim Martin has this board set up is that a thread starts off with a fairly specific question, then leads to a broader and more general discussion with a greater level of knowledge and expertise. People who aren't much interested in that kind of depth can stop reading whenever they feel the subject has moved beyond their range of interest, while others can take the subject on to other levels.

One last point on terminology -- on another one of Jim's boards a couple of the resident experts go off on tirades, belittling posters who use the term "Civil War" instead of the SPC (Southern Politically Correct) "War Between the States". Somehow, in their self-righteous, in-your-face, Southern pride, they forget to answer the guy's question. All they've succeeded in doing is running off someone who only wanted to know where grandpa's regiment served.

Once again, I don't have any problem with using whatever term the poster is comfortable with. They can call it the "War of the Rebellion" or the "War of Northern Aggression" -- makes no never mind to me, as long as I can help them look beyond the slogans and see what the war was really all about.

Well, Doyle, I'll hop down off my soap-box.

Merry Christmas and best wishes to you and your family, my friend.