HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jeffs@math.bu.EDU (Jeff Suzuki)
Subject: Japanese persona
Organization: The Internet
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 16:39:31 GMT


Cosmano asks:

>        I was wondering, then, are there some kind folk who
>might be willing to describe problems/non-problems with
>having Japense personae in the Society?  

This question might be extended to all who have non-European,
non-Islamic personas.  I'd say the response depends on your location.
There's not much of a problem with Asian personas here in Carolingia
(our Seneschal is one...), but then we're a pretty eclectic group
anyhow.  

Even if you want to play the "game" by the "European locale only"
standard, there's historical justification for just about any persona
from any location by the end of period.  Part of the fun research in
my persona was coming up for a justification for being in Europe; it
went from "I took a wrong turn in Korea" to the current story.  

A while back I offered the view of the SCA as "interactive historical
fiction"; it _could_ have happened thus.  No magic, no elves, but
Europe and Asia are separated only by the Ural "mountains", and Asia
is separated from the Americas by a mere 120 miles or so:  man somehow
got to America long before Cristof whatshisface.  If a thousand year
gap is acceptable, why not a thousand mile one?  

Fujimoto
From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Fighting in crown: a thought
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:30:00
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: dgreen@athena's message of 23 Dec 1992 02:20:17 GMT


Padraigh could champion Caitlin and Caitlin's consort, since
Padraigh and Caitlin are both the same member of the Society.
The Society deals with people, not personas ( awards and titles
are all tranferable for persona to persona, for example ).

It would even be neat : having one persona fight for another persona.
Obviously there's no danger of abuse (e.g. rent-a-hot-stick) here.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
From: Joe.Bethancourt@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bethancourt)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet
From: mcdaniel@grex.ann-arbor.mi.us (Tim McDaniel)
Subject: Re: Re-joining the SCA as a Bandit
Organization: GREX Public Access Unix +1 313 761 3000
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:27:45 GMT

Goodman Axel:

Think about what happens at the first event you attend something turns
up missing -- and it happens sometimes.  I believe that "<soandso> the
Bandit" is likely to be the first suspect.  You're likely to have a bad
time of it.

Someone wrote "The SCA is the only place or subculture where anyone
would say 'I am a barbarian.'.".  The same foes for "bandit".  In
persona, I am in 1156 in England.  We've just gone thru 30 years of
civil war (Stephen versus Matilda) and the lords and people
desperately want peace.  There are robbers -- far too many robbers.  I
would not treat a robber kindly.  No one in period would.  If you
confessed to a capital crime in England, you could be hung -- even if
you could not possibly have committed the crime.  I forget the king who
changed that rule -- Henry II?

By the way: the Oxford English Dictionary has no citations for "bandit"
in period.  Also, the original Italian referred to a member of an
outlaw band.  I suggest you consult a herald about a name.

-- 
Daniel of Lincoln, Burgh of Cynnabar / Tim McDaniel
Internet: mcdaniel@{grex,m-net}.ann-arbor.mi.us, mcdaniel@adi.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Re: Non fighting royalty
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:14:27 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Greetings from Arval!

Palymar made a very good point, that there is no reason to believe that
non-fighters will make better rulers than fighters unless the system itself
is designed to choose good rulers.  One can argue that championing might
work that way: If a fighter is going to put his own reputation on the line
to let someone else rule, he may take care to be convinced that they will
do a good job.  I don't think that's a particularly good argument, and no
other method of choosing royalty that I've heard seriously discussed seems
to me to be guaranteed to produce better rulers than the one we've got now.
That having been said, Juan asked:

> Given that having interests other than fighting does not make a a couple
> less suitable to rule than a fighter, what is so objectionable about
> giving non fighters a chance to rule?

That isn't how we do it now.  Twenty-seven years of tradition has value,
and should not be lightly discarded.  That is not to say it can never be
discarded, but it must be clear that the new alternative will benefit the
Society in the long run.  The current system produces a military
aristocracy, which matches the historico-romantic picture that we have of
medieval society.  For many people, that is an important, central feature
of the SCA.  If we are going to change that feature, then most of the
Society should be convinced that the benefits of the new system will
outweigh the loss of that feature and the end of a long tradition.

Why do people want to change the method of reaching the throne?  Because,
as William has observed in another thread, an enormous amount of practical
and symbolic power is concentrated in the Crown.  Giving more people a path
to that focus of power is one way to make the system fairer, but no matter
how the Crown is chosen, very few people are ever going to reach that
office.  There is another solution to the problem: Distribute the power to
more people.  If the Crown were less powerful and less important, then the
question of how we choose the Crown would be correspondingly less
important. 

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com
From: ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Schroeder)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Non fighting royalty
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:53:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.sfEzVfK00WB=4FiM4S
Organization: Doctoral student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Joyous greetings of the New Year, good gentles!

Arval offers insightful comments that reshape the question of 
(ways to get) non-fighting royalty:

> Why do people want to change the method of reaching the throne?  Because,
> as William has observed in another thread, an enormous amount of practical
> and symbolic power is concentrated in the Crown.  Giving more people a path
> to that focus of power is one way to make the system fairer, but no matter
> how the Crown is chosen, very few people are ever going to reach that
> office.  There is another solution to the problem: Distribute the power to
> more people.  If the Crown were less powerful and less important, then the
> question of how we choose the Crown would be correspondingly less
> important. 

Only these lines I would like to recommend to _all_ kingdoms a custom
I noted worked well in Calontir -- the concept that Kings and Queens
should have high powered politicians/diplomats (which _they_ call
_Chancellors_) to handle a good bit of the paperwork, correspondence,
et cetera, AND to advise (often _direct_) the Crown as the need arises.
The prestige of a less-experienced Crown Prince and Princess seemed to
rise if they were able to gain the aid of highly skilled and respected
members of the Society to act as their Chancellors.  The usual pattern
was to pick _two_ people to serve in these roles, but I don't think that
was carved in granite.

Perhaps encouraging the spread of this custom would be a good thing.
I'm certain it would prove VERY valuable here in the East.

What do the rest of you good folk think?

  Hmmm... now that I re-read Arval's words I believe he's advocating
  something a bit more sweeping than simply adding chancellors... :-)
  I would welcome further elaboration of just what is meant by
  "Distribute the power to more people."  Stronger barons?
  Stronger households?  What is your vision of a more widely
  distributed power structure?  (Thanks!)  

Happy holidays -- Bertram

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
+------------------------ PREME * Press On * PREME ---------------------+
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..."
From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Primitive FireArms
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:53:11 GMT
Organization: The Nibelungenlied Incorporated

In article <1992Dec30.211310.9513@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>In article <pa124548.579.725741149@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa124548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <DOCONNOR.92Dec30085832@potato.sedona.intel.com> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>>>Recurves are period. They were the usual bow used by the
>>>Turks and the Mongols, as well as other peoples.
>>
>>Could you document that?  The last time the issue was raised, one of the "
>>purists" on this forum screamed bloody blue murder because to him, an "
>>authenticist,"  a line of archers with recurves didn't "look mideveal."
>
>The recent--within the last year or so--Scientific American article on
>bows dicussed this.  You see... *Both* opinions are correct.
>Composite recurve bows are period.  Some of them go back to or before
>Homeric Greece (I've seen speculation that that's the story behind
>Ulysses' bow--it was a recurve and they'd got out of use in the area
>and none of the suitors knew *how* to string it, rather than being too
>stiff.  That is--it was a family hierloom and Ulysses knew how to use

How about the Byzantine bows ? They were of composite construction, and I'd
recall they were recurved ? This would certainly be period...

--++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo FINLAND              ++ Edward III. All you need is an  ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like Duke of Alencon.     ++
From: TALLAN@flis.utoronto.ca (David Tallan)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Arval on Heraldry
Date: 27 Dec 92 13:14:56 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Hear, Hear!

David Tallan (tallan@flis.utoronto.ca)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:19:05 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Greetings from Arval!

Tadhg wrote: 

> I define "western culture" to include those areas that were part of the
> western half of the Roman empire...

I guess if you start with the assumption that this is all the College is
supposed to care about, and that the College is free to pick and choose
those parts of medieval heraldry that the SCA should be allowed to use,
then the rest of your argument follows.  On the other hand, your
justification for these positions seems to be nothing more than "This is
what we are doing, therefore we may do nothing else."

> You persist in asserting that any practice is of equal value to any other
> practice. Not so. Some practices are crucial, others are eccentric; a
> minority of 49% is still a minority.

By that standard, we would allow nothing at all: We might be able to list
four or five heraldic usages found in a majority of the period evidence.
Obviously that is not our standard.  Can you find hundreds of period
examples of "a millrind" or "a pall" or a winged beast or a field divided
of blue and green?  I doubt it, yet those are freely accepted without the
slightest qualm.  In fact, the choice of what is and isn't allowed in SCA
armory is only very slightly based in period evidence at all.

Several times in this discussion you have argued that the most important
feature of the College's re-creation of period armory is "a consistent
system"; indeed, you have asserted that it even more important than
actually re-creating medieval heraldic style.  What evidence do you have
that medieval armory at any time and at any place in our period was ever "a
consistent system"?  In fact, it was not: It was a hodge-podge of centuries
of development, importation from other cultures, and local anomalies.  It
was unregulated at most times and in most places, and even in those few
places where there was a regulating authority, we have virtually no
evidence as to how and why new armory was designed.  It is certainly true
that in any given place at any particular time some practices were more
common than others, and as you are fond of reminding me Laurel believes
that our armory ought to be based exclusively on "common practices"
(whatever that means).  Where does this insistence in "consistency" arise?

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: 71431.167@compuserve.COM (REED E HARRIG)
Subject: Non-fighting Royalty
Organization: The Internet
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:53:04 GMT


Greetings all from Palymar

Juan (colin@ips.oz.au (Colin Yuile)) writes:
> Allowing non fighters to become royalty won't stop dumb decisions,
> but should allow better informed decisions in non fighting areas.

Peder Klingrode responded:
  
>I agree.  Futhermore, for a fighter to enter a list as champion for
>couple, _three_ people has to agree, not just two.  I think that
>alone should stop several unsuitable rulers-wannabes (though not
>all).

Why? It seems to me that a good number of people accept it as fact that
fighters are not good rulers.  The logic generally goes: The skills
required to win Crown Tourney are not the same as those needed to
rule.  Therefore fighters do not make good rulers.  Why would a
non-fighting couple make better informed decisions in non-fighting
areas?  More to the point, every fighter has a perspective consort who
is generally a non-fighter anyway.  

I am not concern about the prospect of a fighter championing a
non-fighting couple.  I think it would be a healthy change to the
system, and at the same time give more people access to the throne.  I
do not believe that such a change would produce any better rulers.  
Being a non-fighters does not give you an exclusive insight on how to
rule a kingdom any more than being a fighter does.

-Palymar


From: Mike.Andrews@f1077.n147.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Andrews)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Am I getting though?
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:59:00 -0500

Greetings from Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, of the Barony 
of Namron, in the Kingdom of Ansteorra (Norman, Oklahoma) 
 
Organizations: Waytes and Measures, a Medieval and Renaissance Consort 
 
To: PAULB@saturn.uark.EDU ("Paul A. Byers") 
 On 12-22-92 "PAUL A. BYERS" wrote to ALL... 
 
 "A> From: PAULB@saturn.uark.EDU ("Paul A. Byers") 
 "A> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca 
 "A> Organization: University of Arkansas 
 "A> 
 "A> if any one gets this please respond. 
 "A> 
 "A> Pavel 
 "A> Calontir 
 "A> 
 "A> --- 
 "A>  * Origin: The Black Cat's Usenet <=> Fidonet Gateway (1:109/401.0) 
 
You got this far, m'Lord. 
 
Michael (Mike Andrews) 
(405) 364-0270 
429 Dakota, Norman, OK 73069 
 
 
 
... OFFLINE 1.42 * Dic mihi paulum quod sentis.
From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Primitive FireArms
Date: 30 Dec 92 08:58:32
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
	<6185@naucse.cse.nau.edu> <viking.725190272@vincent1.iastate.edu>
	<1992Dec29.164237.22803@progress.com>
	<ARCHER.550.725658404@utkvm1.utk.edu>
	<1992Dec29.213001.26781@progress.com>
	<pa142548.573.725728694@utkvm1.utk.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu's message of Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:18:14 GMT


pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
] >  The same way we address the needs of people who want [...]
] >  recurve bows [...]

Recurves are period. They were the usual bow used by the
Turks and the Mongols, as well as other peoples.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: nusbache@epas.utoronto.ca (Aryk Nusbacher)
Subject: Re: Fighting in crown: a thought
Organization: University of Toronto - Office of the Provost
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:10:20 GMT


    Elwyn of Thornbury wrote:

 DB> Lord Aryk Nusbacher, earlier in this discussion, asked, "Why on earth
 DB> would you want to open the possibility of becoming SCA royalty to
 DB> non-fighting couples?"

That's Second-Lieutenant the Lord Aryk Nusbacher, if you want to get
me in real trouble with the law.  Otherwise, you can call me Mr.
We don't hold much with titles of nobility here in the Office of the
Vice-President and Provost.

I am reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby's redaction of the grades of the
Order of St. Michael and St. George (the Civil Service's favourite knighthood):

	C.M.G.		Call Me God
	K.C.M.G.	Kindly call me God
	G.C.M.G.	God calls me God

 DB> Perhaps, my lord, because some of us do not believe that the ability
 DB> to fight well and the ability to rule effectively are either
 DB> inherently or exclusively connected.

Neither are the surname Plantagenet and the ability to rule
effectively inherently or exclusively connected (to the modern mind,
anyway).  That's the annoying thing about the Middle Ages, they were
filled with unfair stuff like that.

Aryk Nusbacher

Who would vote for any political party that would let us have titles back!
From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: On The Nature Of Armor...
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:52:09
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: Ron.Hauser@f76.n280.z1.fidonet.org's message of Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:16:00 -0500


Ron.Hauser@f76.n280.z1.fidonet.org (Ron Hauser) writes:
] I am sometimes quite irritated by the assumption "well I dont wear hardly 
] any armor milord, and I didn't feel that, so it must have been light."  
] Many people who wear near-minimum armor are quite aware of what shots land 
] on their body (since it creates a bruise), but I have seen people get 
] excited and pumped up on adrenaline, to the point where they didn't feel 
] much of anything--good, light, or anything short of bone crushing.  

I can understand this, as I've experienced a lesser degree of that
myself and seen others experience it. However, if a fighter really
is as "pumped up" as you perhaps-hyperbolicly describe, then maybe
for the safety of his brothers and sisters in arms it would be
best for he or she to sit down and chill out for a while. Someone
so pumped that they can't guage the blows the receive may be too
hyper to control the blows they give, and that may not be safe.

One problem is that a "combat high" can be like a being drunk :
you don't realize how far you're gone, it feels so good !
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Theme Events, a good idea?
From: kgassner@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:11:25 CST
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.umkc.edu


Greetings, Good Gentles!

Recently the idea of theme events that are limited to a special period of time
and a special place has been suggested several times.
Do you really think this is such a great idea? I am a very recent member to the
SCA and the thought of all newcomers being excluded from a range of events
just because they don't have the right garb for the occasion depresses me.
At the moment I'm proudly wearing my first and only t-tunic and cloak and one
of the things I enjoy most about the SCA is the warm welcome for beginners.

And I really hope this will not change for the sake of theme events.

	Ekkehart von Wartstein
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: cassie@worf.nas.nasa.gov (Cassandra L. Baldassano)
Subject: Re: The SCA Religion? ( was: Through a looking glass, darkly)
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 20:45:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.192304.11921@xn.ll.mit.edu>, kathy@xn.ll.mit.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Dec16.210248.3617@nas.nasa.gov> cassie@worf.nas.nasa.gov (Cassandra L. Baldassano) writes:
|> >Greetings from Euriol of Lothian
|> >
|> >In article <cf=nwyC00WB9M2h3kc@andrew.cmu.edu>, David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> >
|> >I have often consider that the SCA might be a "religion" to some people. But
|> >by no means a conventional one.
 
|> To me, and I suspect to most participants in organized religions (or dis-
|> organized religions, for that matter), calling something a religion implies
|> that somewhere at the core of its structure is a belief in a higher power or
|> powers, be it God, Allah, YHVH, or a variety of pagan dieties.  This is an
|> aspect clearly missing from the SCA.  True, the SCA does present a set of
|> moral guidelines, but these are behaviors that we as a group decided to
|> aspire to, rather than having been handed down from a supernatural source.
|> 
|> 							A'isha
|> 
|> [For the record, by comparing the SCA to existing fraternal societies, many
|> of which are exclusively male, I don't mean to imply that there is or should
|> be any sexual bias in the SCA.  Unfortunately English just doesn't seem to 
|> have a word that carries the same depth of meaning as fraternal that isn't in
|> some way gender-specific.]
|> 
|> 
|> A'isha bint Jamil, of the Barony of Stonemarche, in the Kingdom of the East
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must agree that quite often it is difficult to convey the proper meaning
through mere words. That's why I put religion in quotes. So maybe I should
say that there are some people, myself included, who find no need for a
formal religion because of some of the aspects the SCA provides, such as
a sense of community and a set of moral guidelines. However, there are plenty
of others who have strong beliefs in formal religions as well as participating
in the SCA.

No, the SCA could never be a formal religion, since many of its participants
have a wide range of beliefs. I agree that brotherhood is a better term to 
describe the SCA.

Happy Holidays to all:

Euriol of Lothian
From: Beth.Appleton@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Beth Appleton)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet