Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Up-catching

Expand Messages
  • Gerita/Carolle Cox
    Greetings, all, While I ve been reading/scanning this list, and not participating much, life has gone one at full tilt! Mundanely, I m back in school working
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 26, 2004
      Greetings, all,

      While I've been reading/scanning this list, and not participating much,
      life has gone one at full tilt!

      Mundanely, I'm back in school working on yet another useless college
      degree. But enjoying the heck out of it in the next breath! And got
      hurt again, so more PT and problems, and not as much showing up at
      events as I'd like to be doing. And now I'm considering putting in for
      a "real" office in my Barony, and having utter nerve fits about it!

      Brangwayna - if you don't mind, maybe we can compare class notes - I'm
      threatening to teach the same type of thing at the next indoor event!
      So tired of the dichotomous thing that generally goes on, and wanting to
      show folks that authenticity can be a lot of fun!

      Snarking is definitely on my list of what you don’t do in public. It
      still amazes me the number of people who feel it necessary to make snide
      remarks about other people's hard work. I'm still the principal of the
      textile guild around here, and the number of people who bring hurt
      feelings and unfinished projects to me for help is astonishing. And the
      projects are pretty darned good, too! I made a first effort at a cotte
      recently, following someone else's pattern. Should have known better,
      as it had a princess seam in it. Next event, sure enough, catty remarks
      like you wouldn't believe. <sigh> But I did learn a lot about fitting
      a cotte to a large-busted frame from it, and someone borrowed it, and
      has yet to return the darned thing, too! LOL

      I just finished "Eleanor of Acquitaine and the Four Kings". Good read!
      It reminded me of long-forgotten history, at any rate. And made a
      decent case for Henry Not being the one who ordered Thomas a Beckett's
      death..... I have several books about women on my shelf, now, including
      one about Margery Kemp that scared the bejabbers out of me! What a
      mental case that one was!

      In service,
      gerita

      People are like stained glass windows. They sparkle and shine when the
      sun is out, but when darkness sets in, their beauty is revealed only if
      there is a light from within. -- Elizabeth Kübler-Ross
    • Mary Taran
      ... Ooh, tell about this one. Title, author, isbn? Mary Taran ... Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 26, 2004
        At 10:02 AM 9/26/2004, Gerita wrote:
        >I have several books about women on my shelf, now, including
        >one about Margery Kemp that scared the bejabbers out of me! What a
        >mental case that one was!


        Ooh, tell about this one. Title, author, isbn?

        Mary Taran


        ----------


        ---
        Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
        Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
        Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Sharon L. Krossa
        ... What do you consider a snide remark? In particular, is any mention that something is not authentic by definition snide? If not, what sorts of snide remarks
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 27, 2004
          At 12:02 PM -0500 9/26/04, Gerita/Carolle Cox wrote:
          >Snarking is definitely on my list of what you don’t do in public. It
          >still amazes me the number of people who feel it necessary to make snide
          >remarks about other people's hard work.

          What do you consider a snide remark? In
          particular, is any mention that something is not
          authentic by definition snide? If not, what sorts
          of snide remarks are being made and in what
          specific circumstances?

          >I'm still the principal of the
          >textile guild around here, and the number of people who bring hurt
          >feelings and unfinished projects to me for help is astonishing.

          That people get their feelings hurt doesn't
          necessarily mean they were snarked. Many people
          are over sensitive and see snarking where there
          really isn't any. Maybe they asked someone for
          their opinion of the authenticity of what they
          were doing and didn't like the honest answer they
          got (in which case the fault is their own for
          asking when they didn't want a real answer).
          Maybe they mistook a sincere offer of help and
          assistance for an attack (and do we really want
          it to be the rule that no one ever offers help
          until asked?). Maybe they heard people saying in
          public that whatever thing they happened
          coincidentally to have done wasn't authentic. And
          so on.

          Of course, occasionally there really is snarking.
          However, from what many have observed (some over
          the course of decades) it is rarely truly
          authenticity minded folks who do it; actual
          snarking appears to be most often simply rude
          people who have picked authenticity to be rude
          about -- probably because so many people are so
          sensitive about it and thus it makes an easy
          target.

          Unfortunately, actual snarking victims and their
          friends too often concentrate on the topic the
          rude person was rude about and on the basis of
          that lay the blame on authenticity and those
          interested in authenticity rather than on the
          true culprits -- rude people.

          >And the
          >projects are pretty darned good, too! I made a first effort at a cotte
          >recently, following someone else's pattern. Should have known better,
          >as it had a princess seam in it. Next event, sure enough, catty remarks
          >like you wouldn't believe.

          What exactly were the circumstances of these
          "catty remarks"? (See above for other
          possibilities...)

          Affrick
          --
          Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
        • Susan Farmer
          ... IME, it s always unsolicited, and usually delivered with a holier-than- thou attutude. Sort of like the Ohmigod!!! Who let you out of the house in
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 27, 2004
            >
            > At 12:02 PM -0500 9/26/04, Gerita/Carolle Cox wrote:
            > >Snarking is definitely on my list of what you don�t do in public. It
            > >still amazes me the number of people who feel it necessary to make snide
            > >remarks about other people's hard work.
            >
            > What do you consider a snide remark? In
            > particular, is any mention that something is not
            > authentic by definition snide? If not, what sorts
            > of snide remarks are being made and in what
            > specific circumstances?

            IME, it's always unsolicited, and usually delivered with a holier-than-
            thou attutude. Sort of like the "Ohmigod!!! Who let you out of the
            house in ***that***

            Jerusha
          • msgilliandurham
            ... public. It ... make snide ... Here s a thought -- since when has it become polite to offer unsolicited criticism of *anyone s* clothing, belongings,
            Message 5 of 13 , Sep 27, 2004
              --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Susan Farmer <sfarmer@s...>
              wrote:
              > >
              > > At 12:02 PM -0500 9/26/04, Gerita/Carolle Cox wrote:
              > > >Snarking is definitely on my list of what you don't do in
              public. It
              > > >still amazes me the number of people who feel it necessary to
              make snide
              > > >remarks about other people's hard work.

              Here's a thought -- since when has it become polite to offer
              unsolicited criticism of *anyone's* clothing, belongings, behavior,
              etc? In *any* situation? Complaining to someone's face that their
              clothing is not historially accurate is just as rude as complaining
              that their mundate clothing is not fashionable.

              Maybe the Guild of St. Ursala (or whatever we decide to call it)
              should be the Anti-snarking League, and our badge should be a snark
              (surely there's a Lewis Carroll book out there somewhere with a
              drawing of a snark) with the red circle and slash across it.

              Gillian (only slightly tongue-in-cheek)
            • Marc Carlson
              ... First let me start by saying that I agree completely with your assertion that all too often the hurt feelings are from the recipient s interpretation, not
              Message 6 of 13 , Sep 27, 2004
                --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Sharon L. Krossa"
                <skrossa-ml@M...> wrote:
                > What do you consider a snide remark? In
                > particular, is any mention that something is not
                > authentic by definition snide? If not, what sorts
                > of snide remarks are being made and in what
                > specific circumstances?...

                First let me start by saying that I agree completely with your
                assertion that all too often the hurt feelings are from the
                recipient's interpretation, not from that of the person speaking.

                What is snide comment? What is snarking? The OED defines "snark" (as
                a verb) meaning a) to snore or snort and b) to find fault with or to
                nag. "Snarky" means being irritable, short tempered or narky (i.e.
                Irritable, bad-tempered; sarcastic, disparaging).

                Snide is I believe in this context Insinuating, sneering, slyly
                derogatory - however it also means hypocrisy, pretense, malicious
                gossip (among other meanings that are clearly not correct for what is
                under discussion.

                Let's see... "snarky". This weekend I was at an event, and while at
                this event encountered numerous cases of bad costume and the
                occasional comment on said costume ranging from the "OMG, what is s/he
                wearing? Can you believe that?" to the more subtle "ah, I see the air
                conditioning is up a little high..." These were perfectly safe
                because they were between friends and safely behind the back of the
                person being discussed (Now, I should point out that I, myself,
                -never- make such comments *ahem*). Those comments *are* snarking,
                and, what's more important, those comments WILL happen when humans are
                involved (and I think that most of us, if nto all of us can thing of a
                time or two when we saw something someone was wearing that just begged
                for commentary). Even if we change the tone of "OMG, what is s/he
                wearing? Can you believe that?" from the sarcastic to the painfully
                embarrassed for the other person, it's still "snarking" because fault
                is being found.

                Heck, you want evidence that this happens? Simply watch -any-
                costuming list after a new historical movie comes out (and not just
                commenting on costuming - with all the snarking and whinging about
                this or that bit, I'm often surprised Hollywood's still in business).
                Note, the previous sentences are, of course, snarking, since they are
                finding fault with people's behavior :)

                I'm sure there will be disagreement with the above, so we tend to
                limit the definition to finding fault where the person being discussed
                can hear what is being said (usually because it's being said to their
                face). For example, many years ago, I went to an event in a black
                Victorian style kilt (long story, not very interesting). While I was
                there, I had a number of people who felt it was necessary to come up
                to me to tell me that there was no such thing as a black kilt - a kilt
                -had- to be in a tartan pattern for some clan or other, and the local
                Scottish "expert" felt the need to pompously expound on the history of
                the clan tartans and that while those weren't "period", black was just
                wrong [at which point I lost my temper and explained pointedly that
                the color was irrelevant since the design of the kilt was OOP, much
                less the lack of documentation for kilts altogether blah, blah... and
                then proceeded to dissect HIS outfit].

                Were these comments from others intended to be "critical"? Although
                it's hard to absolutely state other people's motives, I'm inclined to
                think that they -thought- they were trying to be nice and helpful with
                something they thought was a costuming error. But they were still
                finding fault -without being asked for their input-.

                With regards to "snide", again some more examples. I maintain that
                very few people, if any, wear 100% accurate reproductions of medieval
                shoes to events. There are some people who come fairly close, but
                if we look really hard we could find -something- wrong. Most people
                though have to make do, and so there is this vast spectrum of what
                people have come up with. In that spectrum is a range of variation
                that I find truly fascinating and quite impressive. So I tend to look
                at people's footwear to see what they've come up with. And if they've
                come up with something new, inventive, or just really creative, I will
                try to let them know that that I like what they've done.
                Unfortunately, sometimes people are only too aware that that their
                footwear is inaccurate, and so there have been times when my comments
                of "hey, I like your shoes", "nice boots", etc have been interpreted
                as snide attacks.

                Coversely, some snide attacks ARE snide attacks: "My dear, that outfit
                is spectacular; I'm sure the rest of it is even better..."; "Honey,
                you look -- what's the phrase -- tutto il mondo sul mio balcone." "If
                you're going to dress in Italian Ren, I think you should go for an
                Italian persona. How does Rifiuti Bianchi grab you for a name?"

                Marc/Diarmaid
              • annikki@comcast.net
                ... But then there are some of us who have worn princess seamed cotte s on and off for years and never heard anything negative about it -- only positives. Nor
                Message 7 of 13 , Sep 27, 2004
                  >I made a first effort at a cotte
                  >recently, following someone else's pattern. >Should have known better,
                  >as it had a princess seam in it. Next event, >sure enough, catty remarks
                  >like you wouldn't believe.
                  >In service,
                  >gerita

                  But then there are some of us who have worn princess seamed cotte's on and off for years and never heard anything negative about it -- only positives. Nor have I heard such a comment on ones that I had drafted, that other women were wearing. IIRC, there's even some artwork that can support the concept -- but it's not really my area.

                  I figure that bad garb doesn't necessarily end up being snarked, and questionable garb doesn't necessarily end up being snarked, and authentic-but-against-incorrect-common-knowledge doesn't necessarily end up being snarked. It's not a matter of "sure enough..." It's more a matter of rude people, or misinterpretations of intent, or such. Unless maybe it's more a matter of regional anthropology?

                  Adele

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • bronwynmgn@aol.com
                  In a message dated 9/27/2004 10:45:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com writes:
                  Message 8 of 13 , Sep 27, 2004
                    In a message dated 9/27/2004 10:45:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                    Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com writes:

                    <<Brangwayna - if you don't mind, maybe we can compare class notes - I'm
                    threatening to teach the same type of thing at the next indoor event!
                    So tired of the dichotomous thing that generally goes on, and wanting to
                    show folks that authenticity can be a lot of fun! >>

                    Be more than happy to share. Actually, a lot of what is covered in it is
                    stuff Affric hit in her post a bit later in this digest - all the stuff about
                    being disappointed with the answer you requested not being a case of snarking,
                    that the real snarks aren't usually real authenticists, and so forth.

                    Brangwayna
                  • msgilliandurham
                    To the folks here who address snarking in their authenticity classes - - do you address the issue of how snarkees can handle being snarked? Given that the
                    Message 9 of 13 , Sep 28, 2004
                      To the folks here who address snarking in their authenticity classes -
                      - do you address the issue of how snarkees can handle being snarked?

                      Given that the entire "authenticity" issue is OOP anyway, perhaps
                      simply treating the snarker as if they are someone demented, who is
                      babbling nonsense, and should be treated gently and pitied?

                      My experience with bullies (which is what a snarker is, really --
                      someone who perverts knowledge into a tool to attack others) is that
                      the best way to take the wind out of their sails is to not take them
                      seriously.

                      Here's a thought -- I suggest that we eliminate the term of "snark"
                      and its derivatives, and start referring to these people (those who,
                      without any solicitation, offer harshly worded and demeaning
                      criticism of another's work, behavior, or belongings) as "Tom
                      o'Bedlams" (Yeah, it's sexist, but the OED gives "bedlamite" a
                      slightly OOP provenance.)

                      After all, someone who needs to attack other people for their own
                      satisfaction would seem to have a "problem" ...

                      And what do you tell people about sharing their knowledge in a
                      fashion that won't be construed as snarking? (except by those who,
                      when they ask for advice, are really looking for unadulturated praise)

                      My thoughts are to avoid words like "wrong" "incorrect" "out of
                      period" etc, and lean heavily on personal experience and standard
                      reference works, gently asking the other person about their research
                      sources, suggesting other sources which you have used sucessfully,
                      saying things (when asked!!) like "Hmmmm. Well, since you are asking,
                      it seems to me that your execution of that (clothing, furniture,
                      whatever) doesn't quite seem to follow the standard interpretation of
                      the existing (garment, table, chair, whatever). Most of the people
                      who recreate that (whatever) use the information in this research
                      tool, do it this way, etc. etc."

                      Or am I way off base here?

                      Thanks for reading -- Gillian
                    • Willow Polson
                      ... ROTFLMAO!!!!! I love it!! 8-) Thanks for the morning guffaw... - Willow (I thought we left snarks behind in high school) MacPherson
                      Message 10 of 13 , Sep 28, 2004
                        At 02:27 PM 9/28/2004 +0000, you wrote:
                        >Given that the entire "authenticity" issue is OOP anyway, perhaps
                        >simply treating the snarker as if they are someone demented, who is
                        >babbling nonsense, and should be treated gently and pitied?

                        ROTFLMAO!!!!! I love it!! 8-) Thanks for the morning guffaw...

                        - Willow (I thought we left snarks behind in high school) MacPherson

                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        Rev. Willow Polson www.willowsplace.com
                        Give my Pagan Paradise Live365 Radio Station a listen!
                        http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=willowpolson
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                      • Sharon L. Krossa
                        ... No, I believe the appropriate response -- *especially* because it is so often hard to distinguish malicious judgmental criticism in the negative sense from
                        Message 11 of 13 , Sep 30, 2004
                          At 2:27 PM +0000 9/28/04, msgilliandurham wrote:
                          >To the folks here who address snarking in their authenticity classes -
                          >- do you address the issue of how snarkees can handle being snarked?
                          >
                          >Given that the entire "authenticity" issue is OOP anyway, perhaps
                          >simply treating the snarker as if they are someone demented, who is
                          >babbling nonsense, and should be treated gently and pitied?

                          No, I believe the appropriate response -- *especially* because it is
                          so often hard to distinguish malicious judgmental criticism in the
                          negative sense from (however inept) sincere attempts to be helpful --
                          is to say "Thank you" and move on.

                          Unless, of course, you'd like to discuss history with them, in which
                          case you say "thank you" and ask about their sources while sharing
                          your own. (This applies equally to those whose information you
                          believe is accurate and those whose information you believe is not.)

                          For even in cases of deliberate rudeness, Miss Manners has taught us
                          that the appropriate response, and best revenge, is to be even more
                          polite.

                          In any case, since most people don't actually play in character for
                          their persona, responding as your persona would doesn't really work
                          too well in the SCA.

                          BTW, note how rapidly many in this discussion have equated snarking
                          with bullying, yet without necessarily excluding from snarking
                          instances of people ineptly and/or tactlessly but sincerely trying to
                          help. In my opinion we should either define snarking such that it
                          only refers to _malicious_ judgemental criticism in the negative
                          sense (so even most cases of unsolicited non-purely praise comment
                          are not snarking), or else stop making the unqualified equation of
                          snarking with bullying, etc.

                          For example, by Diarmaid's definitions, any mentioning of faults,
                          even to 3rd parties in private, qualifies as snarking, but not every
                          case of snarking is bullying or even bad or to be avoided; by my
                          current working definitions -- which have been refined just in this
                          discussion to distinguish between purposefully rude people and
                          well-intentioned but inadvertently rude people -- most instances of
                          mentioning faults do not qualify as snarking but every case of actual
                          snarking is bullying.

                          So perhaps, since even among just the authenticity enthusiasts on
                          this list we have such a range of different but reasonable
                          definitions, indeed we should abandon "snark" and its derivatives and
                          instead speak only -- and separately -- about malicious attacks,
                          about inept/tactless attempts to be helpful, about taking
                          unreasonable offense at coincidental public comments, about taking
                          unreasonable offense at truthful answers, etc.

                          >My experience with bullies (which is what a snarker is, really --
                          >someone who perverts knowledge into a tool to attack others) is that
                          >the best way to take the wind out of their sails is to not take them
                          >seriously.
                          >
                          >Here's a thought -- I suggest that we eliminate the term of "snark"
                          >and its derivatives, and start referring to these people (those who,
                          >without any solicitation, offer harshly worded and demeaning
                          >criticism of another's work, behavior, or belongings) as "Tom
                          >o'Bedlams" (Yeah, it's sexist, but the OED gives "bedlamite" a
                          >slightly OOP provenance.)
                          >
                          >After all, someone who needs to attack other people for their own
                          >satisfaction would seem to have a "problem" ...

                          In my experience (as too often the target of bullies in my youth ;-),
                          the best way to take the wind out of their sails is not to give them
                          a reaction they're seeking. If you refuse to be a victim, refuse to
                          give their words the power to hurt you -- or at least conceal that
                          they have hurt you, and thanking them sincerely and politely (but not
                          sarcastically!) for the information they have shared with you does
                          this very effectively -- they won't get what they're seeking and will
                          usually leave you alone (and even if they don't leave you alone, at
                          least you get the satisfaction of depriving them of the pleasure of
                          getting you to react).

                          And, again, this polite response prevents you from being in the wrong
                          if in fact the person you think is being a malicious bully is really
                          just someone inept at trying to be helpful, etc. -- which is a risk
                          of treating them like they are demented.

                          Ewphrick
                          --
                          Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                        • Rita
                          It is very like another discussion I saw recently which was: why do we need to make up names for normal things. Why do we need to call rude people anything
                          Message 12 of 13 , Sep 30, 2004
                            It is very like another discussion I saw recently which was: why do we need
                            to make up names for normal things. Why do we need to call rude people
                            anything but rude people? I don't get it. My personal feeling is that most
                            of the comments I have heard stated were "snarking" fell in one of several
                            categories.
                            A) Intended to be helpful (and often politely offered) but unwanted
                            comments
                            B) Comments that even the hearer could not guarantee were intended to
                            refer to the person in question. For example hearing "NOT PERIOD" across
                            the battlefield but not turning around to see what that was referring to.
                            C) Socially inept people being socially inept

                            Almost without exception these are rude people and moreover if we all got a
                            little thicker skin (like I tell my 7th grader daughter)
                            fiona
                          • Marc Carlson
                            Affrick, I tend to agree with what you ve said, with a small proviso Although I may have missed it in what you posted (and if so, I apologize), is that in any
                            Message 13 of 13 , Oct 1, 2004
                              Affrick, I tend to agree with what you've said, with a small proviso
                              Although I may have missed it in what you posted (and if so, I
                              apologize), is that in any face to face "snarking" incident there are
                              generally two (or more) people. That means that there are at least
                              three places where communication can be corrupted. The first is that
                              the sender (the snarker) is sending a corrupted message (they are
                              masturbating their ego putting someone else down, they have poor
                              communications skills, whatever). The second is that the receiver is
                              recieving a corrupted message (they are just receiving the message as
                              sent, they are interpreting it in an overly sensitive way, failure to
                              interpret it correctly, so on). Finally there is the actual
                              transmission itself, which can be corrupted by outside influences,
                              third parties, history, social context, medium of transmission, and
                              such. It's easy to say that the problem is with the other person, but
                              it's very hard to really know about other influences.

                              In an ideal world, when we receive a negative message, we should wait
                              for verification before ascribing intent or fault. If I walk up to
                              you and say "that outfit sucks", you would be safe to assume that the
                              message was fairly clear.

                              If I came up to you and said (in a condescending tone) "that's wrong",
                              again you would be justified in assuming there was some problem,
                              likely that I'm a jerk -- in which case you can either blow me off, or
                              start looking at past exchanges and/or exchanges with other people.
                              If those appear to have been fairly positive, then the problem may be
                              with -your- intereptation of my tone.

                              In short, in critiquing your garments, I may not be intending to be an
                              officious arrogant jerk (almost certainly I am not intending that),
                              although that may be how I come across. OTOH, you may be interpreting
                              me as such for reasons you are not taking into consideration (you are
                              having a bad day, you've been abused like this before, I've abused you
                              like this before..., difference in social rank or degree, what have
                              you).

                              In all honesty, I have found through personal experience that most
                              communication problems can be reduced and analyzed, and generally
                              there is rarely one single cause (although it can happen). Sometimes
                              there are overwhelming influences, but usually fault should be avoided
                              since all too often everyone's got some fault going.

                              Added to that, in the SCA we (as a culture) teach our new people to
                              -expect- attacks by the more authentic than thou. And if I am
                              expecting an attack from you, I think there should be no surprise when
                              I interpret something that looks something like an attack as an attack
                              (Again, it may well BE an attack as well as my interpreting it as an
                              attack, but I could just as easily be interpreting poor social skills
                              as an attack).

                              Marc/Diarmaid
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.