From: GEN0036@Husky1.StMarys.Ca (Brynjolfr)
Subject: Courtesy, Filking, Violence and other Unrelated Topics
Organization: St. Mary's University, Halifax, N.S., Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:02:15 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.12.SMU


                                 Courtesy

There's been a rather large amount of discussion recently on various ideas
of courtesy. Myself, I hold to rather simple ideas of courtesy; Stephen's
post didn't really violate *courtesy*, it was simply a case of poor
judgement. He ran off a rather quick, short little post (which would
generally be a trend to encourage, overall; the number of rather huge posts
recently has been on the increase) which was too short to *effectively*
communicate what it meant. It left gaps. So people filled in the gaps with
their own perceptions...

I read it and thought "huh? what's he mean? whatever, I've got N other
posts to catch up on, this one is about filking which isn't a topic that
really interests me all that much so I'll ignore it" --- as a result, I
didn't reply to it. If I had replied to it, it probably would have been in
private mail saying something like "what exactly did you mean by this?"

Instead, people seem to have come down on either side of my original
perception. There are those who have filled in Stephen's blanks and said
"well, he could have meant that this was a good piece of evidence to argue
that filking is by necessity a mundane thing" and have concluded that
Stephen was simply misunderstood; and then there are those that have filled
in Stephen's blanks with hatred and said "this is nothing but a putdown
that will antagonize Christian and make him want to go away and leave
us"...

I don't think this thread really has anything to do with filk any more.
It's more got to do with people jumping to conclusions, and arguing about
which conclusion is appropriate to jump to. I think that Stephen's main
crime was vagueness, which really isn't that horrible a crime :) and so
until he says something to clear up his original posting, I think the
argument is null...

                                 Filking

Filking, on the other hand, has been developing into a thread of its own.
People are now beginning to argue what the word "filk" means, which is very
strange.

Normally, filking means taking a currently or recently popular song, and
changing its words around to make it different, usually funny. This is how
science-fiction fandom has been using the word, and since the SF fans were
the people who came up with the word, it seems to make sense to use their
definition, especially since the definition has remained consistent,
something that rarely happens with SF fandom...

But I don't think that what the word means is relevant, really. Because
filk is *clearly* out of place at events, and other times, the SCA's rules
(which is fundamentally what we're talking about here) are irrelevant. I
don't really think what's posted on the Rialto should have anything to do
with SCA rules. The Rialto is a net resource for SCAdians, not a sort of
net branch of the SCA; we're not at an event; etc. And there are certainly
SCAdians who enjoy filk.

I think that the guideline that should be used here for bardic circles is a
modification of the phrase "reasonable attempt at pre-1600 clothing." We
should be making a "reasonable attempt at pre-1600 music." What constitutes
reasonable can vary, but obviously if blue jeans aren't reasonable, then
neither is filking to "Day-O" and people playing Cat Stevens songs on
harps...

                                 Violence

My personal attitude about dealing with assault is that anyone who attacks
me is putting their own life at risk just as much as they are mine. The
fact remains that if the person assaulting you is immobilized, you are
safer than you can be otherwise. Their safety *must* be secondary. Of
course, don't *try* to kill them, but don't worry yourself about doing
things which might kill them (for example, in my personal case - elbows to
the chest. It's something I'll do if I'm in that kind of situation, despite
the fact that I'm perfectly aware that if I hit them in the right [or
wrong] spot, their lung will be punctured and they will die...)

You have three choices - fight, flee, or submit (assuming no help is
available)... Fleeing is best if you have either quick legs or a safe place
nearby (safe being defined as in good lighting, with people around who will
intimidate your assailant); fighting is best if you have an advantage of
some kind (e.g. a drunk assailant, while you're sober; a weapon you know
how to use; hand-to-hand training; lots of streetfighting experience; etc.)
and submission should only be an option if the other two are clearly
impossible, and should also only be used as a way of looking for an opening
to allow you to take one of the two options...

These facts are true anywhere. One thing I learned a long time ago is that
nowhere is safe... The supposedly safer rural areas can be just as
extremely violent as cities. This applies to events, too.

-Brynjolfr Myrkjartanarson, Compaignie Mercurie, Seashire, Ruantallan, East

      The unwise man thinks he will live for ever if he shuns fight, but
      Old age gives him no peace though spears may shun him. - The Havamal

          The Net: gen0036@husky1.stmarys.ca, gen0036@stmarys.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca