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

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: Children

Expand Messages
  • Laura Morgan
    the radio flyer ships in 4-5 days and costs $145 the goat cart ships in 5-7 days and costs $269. it would be a shame in my book to compromise just to have to
    Message 1 of 68 , Jul 26, 2005
      the radio flyer ships in 4-5 days and costs $145 the goat cart ships in 5-7 days and costs $269.
      it would be a shame in my book to compromise just to have to buy another one next year.
      I thought that the goat cart was a really decent option, which is why I posted it. I meant no offence.


      gedney@... wrote:
      > Let me add my nix to the radio flyer wagon. If your goal is
      > authenticity it is only a waste of your money.

      Of COURSE the optimum goal is to have a more period looking
      wagon, like the goat cart or the panther wagon.

      I said (and I rather thought I said it clearly) that the radio flyer
      wagon would do for NOW. That she should get a more period
      cart for NEXT YEAR. If she decorated it with a sun shade and
      cloth, she could hide the worst modernisms.

      Radio Flyer makes a wooden sided wagon, you know.

      A bit of spray paint, and some cloth would make this a lot
      more palatable, and she could have this accomplished
      and ready in short order

      Remember, folks, we are only two weeks from Pennsic.

      If the lady is going, she can't realistically order and wait 6
      weeks for delivery of a goat cart, or tool up and build the
      danged thing.

      I gave her an option that at least will let her enjoy Pennsic
      with her kids, THIS YEAR and one she can buy off the shelf

      Sorry if trying to be sensible upset you.

      Capt Elias
      Dragonship Haven, East
      (Stratford, CT, USA)

      -Renaissance Geek of the Cyber Seas

      - Help! I am being pecked to death by the Ducks of Dilletanteism!
      There are SO damn many more things I want to try in the SCA
      than I can possibly have time for. It's killing me!!!

      Upon the hempen tackle ship-boys climbing;
      Hear the shrill whistle which doth order give
      To sounds confused; behold the threaden sails,
      Borne with the invisible and creeping wind,
      Draw the huge bottoms through the furrow'd sea,
      Breasting the lofty surge: O, do but think
      You stand upon the ravage and behold
      A city on the inconstant billows dancing;
      For so appears this fleet majestical,
      Holding due course to Harfleur.
      - Shakespeare - Henry V, Act III, Prologue

      This is the Authentic SCA eGroup

      Living history Car history Credit history Used car history Vehicle history Comfort suite at living history farm


      Visit your group "Authentic_SCA" on the web.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      Laura Morgan
      with Aubrey & Booga

      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Sharon L. Krossa
      ... 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
      Message 68 of 68 , Aug 2, 2005
        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@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.