At 2:33 PM +0000 7/31/05, m d b wrote:
> > Or maybe this is the group that people write to to have people tell
>them that it is okay to bring modern stuff to an event and you wont
>get ostricized for it. But if so, you guys need to change the name
>to the "Absolution" list. (say three "Hail Marys" and your modern
>gaget is allowed)
>I honestly have not been seeing *any* of that recently.
I believe what prompted the earlier post was not so much the
questions being asked as some the answers the questions were getting
that were along the lines of "Just go ahead and do [insert modern
thing here], it's okay" (full stop), rather than "While of course
it's okay to just do [insert modern thing here], here are some
suggestions for more authentic options for you to consider..."
>So far I've seen queries about how best to tackle a clearly defined
>problem. I won't go into them, but they are pretty easy to read as:
>help I have a medical reason for soemthing that is not terribly
>obvious what is going to work best. Being on this list should give a
>clue as to how authentic the answers could be.
Again, it's not so much the questions that are the problem being
commented on -- it's that some of the answers are *not* taking up the
clue that the question was asked on "Authentic_SCA", but rather just
giving absolution not to bother (and so, of course, not actually
answering the question).
>This is why I am on this list. To get ideas that I may not have
>previously thought of and if they are able to be worked around a
>medical issue I will use it. Or substitude something that isn't
Exactly -- not to be told "Just go ahead and do the modern thing,
don't worry about it, don't bother with trying to be more
authentic/less distracting" with no suggestions of ideas, etc.
>And as for the answers I have been reading.. They haven't been
>mollycoddling people who are capable of doing something but don't
>want to do.
It's not an issue of "mollycoddling" -- it's an issue of answering
the question, or rather, of interpreting the question as about
increasing authenticity/decreasing inauthenticity rather than
interpreting it as asking for permission/absolution.
And many answers have answered the question -- but some have not, but
rather said nothing more than "It's okay to do the modern thing
you're already doing".
>There has been understanding expressed to those of us who
>physically cannot chose the truly authentic path (not that there is
>any such thing*) If this is considered upsetting to people, then I am
>sorry. But it is not going to stop me from asking questions about how
>to best work around a disability that most people cannot see and thus
>not understand. It's going to be hard enough dealing with acepting
>things I would have had to change. If people assume I'm looking for
>validation, then so be it.
Again, what has prompted the firestorm is not really the questions --
it is the answers (or rather, non-answers, given the context in which
the questions were asked). In other words, that some people giving
answers _have_ assumed (or at least responded as if they assumed)
that questioners are only looking for validation, rather than
assuming they really mean it when they ask for suggestions.
And perhaps you're right -- perhaps we should just accept that some
people giving answers are going to assume questioners are just asking
for validation and so don't really mean it when they ask questions on
Authentic_SCA. As long as there are at least a few who actually
answer the question asked, the list still serves its purpose.
Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...