From: parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr)
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:01:59 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Dec16.191012.20530@watson.ibm.com> mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman) writes:
>Greetings from Arval!  Someone wrote to Carolus:

>> something besides bitching.  At the least, why don't you compose a letter
>> and send it to Laurel and Dave Thewlis (the BoD ombudsman for heraldry.)
>> That way you will have at least managed to send your thoughts to someone
>> who will try and make a difference, even if you won't.
>
>Carolus replied:
>
>> Well, now we get to the meat of the matter, don't we? I'm not a
>> herald, nor will I *ever* invest the time needed to seriously
>> participate inthe college. To you, this appears to mean I 
>> should shut up and eat my lima beans.
>
>Carolus, that is unworthy of you.  You know very well that is not what was
>suggested.  A dissatisfied customer in ANY market has to complain to the
>appropriate people if he expects anything to change.  

You are partially right...The reply contains the annoyance I felt
after wading through 7 messages which essentially repeated things
like "you have no call to be criticising the college, you're so
stupid you probably think sable is a fur".

On the other hand, you are also partially wrong. I'm estimating 
25-30 hours of research will be needed to write this letter
properly. I'm being told that if I am not prepared to allot that
time to a problem which is already supposed to be solved for me
by an office of the society, that I oughta shut up.

To place this into perspective, I'm often lucky to get 30 hours
of *sleep* in a week.

One of the major
>obstacles standing in the way of fundamental change in the College of Arms
>(as elsewhere in the SCA) is that there is not sufficient evidence that a
>large number of people really are dissatisfied.  

Just how out of touch can they possibly be, if they (a) don't
recognise a decade plus problem in a society they themselves
are members of, and (b) truly believe that the people who 
trouble to write formal letters to the BoD actually
represent the populace? I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever
that you are correct, Arval...The BoD will not act
without those letters. That's one reason why I have actually
begun to plan the research upon which to base my letter to
Laurel and the BoD ombudsman. 

>> 1) the BoD (brace yourselves) is an impediment to the SCA
>>    and should be radically trimmed and concievably 
>>    eliminated entirely.
>
>And the only people with the authority to do that are the members of the
>Board.  So, if you want it to happen you'd better be prepared to work with
>them.

Merely expressing an opinion, I don't have the time to take a run
at that windmill, and likely never will.

>> 2) I would rather speak to the populace than a bureaucrat,
>>    which is what i do when I post here.
>
>And what do you expect it to accomplish?  No amount of demagogic oratory
>here or anywhere is going to make a difference unless someone puts it on
>paper and sends it to the people empowered to make changes.

demagogic oratory serves a purpose...For one thing, I may have
stirred a few people to write to the BoD (;-)), for another, at 
least now the subject is on peoples minds...

...The hairy eyeballed anarchist on the soapbox is not just
another herald of the revolution, but it's harbinger as well.

>> 3) The ombudsman, if not already aware of these problems from any number
>>    os sources..., certainly won't be swayed by *my* letter.
>
>In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite: The Board tends to make
>significant changes only when there is a large flow of complaint from the
>general populace.  

Well, I'm certainly capable of a large flow of complaint;-)

Carolus Malvoix
-- 
Within the span of the last few weeks I have heard elements of
separate threads which, in that they have been conjoined in time,
struck together to form a new chord within my hollow and echoing
gourd. --Unknown net.person