Re: [Authentic_SCA] "Need"
- Sharon L. Krossa wrote:
> <snip>I'm boggled by your attitude as relayed here. By your logic, prosthetic
> Note, however, that that "need" is only for a specific purpose -- you
> need them _to use your eyes_. Do you "need" to use your eyes? Well, I
> expect (like most people) you want to, you prefer to, find life
> easier and more enjoyable if you do, etc., but if push came to shove,
> no, actually, you don't. We know this because there are actually
> people who manage to not only live but function despite becoming
> completely blind (both modernly and in the Middle Ages).
limbs are not a "need," because one could live without them. After all,
people in the Middle Ages and modernly live without them, so therefore I
can, too? I know you're talking about glasses. They seem to you
something optional, but for me and many others, they are the direct
equivalent of prosthetic eyes.
> <snip>It's interesting that you seem to feel that way. For many, this is the
> But even for those who would be functionally blind without them,
> wearing glasses remains a choice from among multiple options.
choice between looking period with migraines, loss of depth perception,
and bad vision (to just touch the tip of the iceberg), and wearing
glasses. And those effects? They don't go away and you don't "get used
to them" if you opt to use your lenses less often.
> >However - and I'm not saying I've seen you say this, Diarmaid, I'm justI have personally run across conversations where similar statements were
> >commenting in general - grumbling about someone's metal walker or even
> >knee brace is IMO beyond the pale.
> So why then are you making this comment in general? No one in recent
> discussions (or, to the best of my knowledge, ever on this list) has
> grumbled about someone else's metal walker or knee brace or even
> glasses -- nor is anyone likely to in the future.
being made. I also make comparisons to my real-life experiences. I know
local folks with handicaps who use various devices to move around. You
would not believe the comments they've received that I've overheard, in
that oh-so-subtle stage mutter that they're not supposed to hear, but
really are. The only reason I didn't come up out of my chair was because
the insulted person requested that I not - they were used to hearing it,
and hadn't been able to change anyone's mind. I personally have not
gotten flak about glasses that I've heard, but have followed threads on
this list and others where folks were making nasty comments about modern
contraptions used at events that make life possible and richer for those
who require them. Yes. Even here. On glasses. To the point that I've
almost stopped following these threads unless someone is actually
talking about folks offering period glasses for sale.
> Pointing out -- accurately and factually -- that using some modernYes, there is. I can sit near someone in Renn wench garb, and talk
> thing (whatever it is) is a choice and there are more authentic
> options is not "grumbling" about someone's use of that modern thing
> (whatever it is). There is no value judgement implied in such a
> factual observation. And this is true whether that modern thing is a
> wheelchair or a wrist watch.
accurately and factually to you or anyone else about how her garb is in
need of improvement and different from what history has left us evidence
to see, and it's still a judgement and it's still tacky, for all that it
may be true and accurate. Unasked for offered improvements to someone's
SCA experience = snarking, Affrick, period. When you've already been
offered their reasons to stick with what they're doing, and you continue
to "suggest" that "there's a better way of doing it," your snarkiness
increases by orders of magnitude.
> It only becomes a value judgement, or "grumbling", if people say, inYou just made the comment, obliquely, by suggesting that using my
> so many words "No one should use wheelchairs in the SCA" or "It is
> bad for anyone to use wheelchairs in the SCA" or the like. And,
> again, no one has made any such statement in this discussion group
> about wheelchairs, walkers, knee braces, glasses, etc., nor are they
> likely to.
> Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
prosthetic eyes is a choice somehow lesser than that of choosing to live
with the consequences to me and others of not wearing them. This is a
texy-only forum, though, and perhaps you didn't mean that - but it
definitely reads that way.
- --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Heather M
>> Is there ever really a good time to tell someone that they areSee, I find that all too often people will generally read (or hear)
>> acting like a shmuck?
> IME, only if you want them to actually pay attention to your words
> and not just get angry because you're dressing them down in public.
whatever words they want to read (or hear), disregarding what doesn't
fit what they wanted you to be saying, and inserting things that fit
their pre-conceived notions. Which means that if you are going to be
telling someone that you think they are behaving badly, they will
_virtually_ never hear what you are trying to say, but rather will
take it as an attack. Hence my question. If you're lucky, they'll
actually get the point eventually, but it's almost certain that there
will be embarrassment and/or hurt feelings first (unless, of course,
you implied, you have a particular relationship with the accused).
> Soooo, if I want to really try to point out to them that a changeFor me I find that "are you -sure- that's how you wanted to say that,
> of attitude might be needed, I try to do so as privately as
> possible. Otherwise, it can come across as something that's not so
> much "Hey, you're probably an okay person but that came across to
> portray you as a jerk," but instead something that belongs in the
> first five minutes of Jerry Springer - attack without any point
> other than attack.
since it sounded to me like you were saying X" usually works fairly
well -- particularly in private...
- --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Heather M
> Sharon L. Krossa wrote:you
> > <snip>
> > Note, however, that that "need" is only for a specific purpose --
> > need them _to use your eyes_. Do you "need" to use your eyes?Well, I
> > expect (like most people) you want to, you prefer to, find lifeshove,
> > easier and more enjoyable if you do, etc., but if push came to
> > no, actually, you don't. We know this because there are actuallyprosthetic
> > people who manage to not only live but function despite becoming
> > completely blind (both modernly and in the Middle Ages).
> I'm boggled by your attitude as relayed here. By your logic,
> limbs are not a "need," because one could live without them. Afterall,
> people in the Middle Ages and modernly live without them, sotherefore I
> can, too? I know you're talking about glasses. They seem to youdirect
> something optional, but for me and many others, they are the
> equivalent of prosthetic eyes.I've been watching this conversation for the last few days and
restraining from commenting until now. I agree with Margaret here,
in that this differentiation between need and want has gone off the
Why do we do what we do in the SCA? Well, anyone that I've ever
asked has put 'fun' in there somewhere. The SCA and things
associated with it create some degree of happiness for us.
Now, why would I NOT wear my glasses during an event? Well, after
trying to NOT wear them once and getting a headache... and calling
myself stupid for it, the only reason I could come up with is
because I lost or misplaced them. I would find anyone looking down
upon my attempt at authenticity because I'm wearing glasses very
Back to happiness. In strict reality, humans need few things to
survive: air, food, water and protection from the elements. But to
truly /live/, humans need to have some degree of happiness which of
course can come from countless sources. In our case, the SCA is one
of those sources, and for most members, some amount of authenticity.
I realize that this is definitely a dead horse, but I must stress
that it would be best if we were to base our 'need' on happiness,
not just survival. If I didn't wear my glasses, I would be a small
degree closer to authentic, but a high degree farther away from
comfort and the need to SEE. Anyone wishing to compromise such needs
in the interest of comfort and happiness should have their heads
Are there really members of this discussion list who think such
compromises should be made? I don't really think so, and to see this
discussion go as far as it has is kind of scary.
L. Keterlyn, who actually based her last decision on what style of
eyeglass frames to get on authenticity.
- On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 03:01:48AM -0000, ketamina06 wrote:
> Are there really members of this discussion list who think suchCariadoc doesn't wear glasses at events -- but he doesn't get
> compromises should be made? I don't really think so, and to see this
> discussion go as far as it has is kind of scary.
headaches from doing so. Nor does he comment on anyone else's choices
to wear or not wear their glasses.
- --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Greg Lindahl <lindahl@p...> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 03:01:48AM -0000, ketamina06 wrote:I certainly don't have a problem with headaches without my glasses,
>> Are there really members of this discussion list who think such
>> compromises should be made? I don't really think so, and to see this
>> discussion go as far as it has is kind of scary.
> Cariadoc doesn't wear glasses at events -- but he doesn't get
> headaches from doing so. Nor does he comment on anyone else's choices
> to wear or not wear their glasses.
but what do I know, I obviously need to have my head examined since
I'm clearly willing to occasionally set aside mere comfort for my own
personal goals of honoring those who've gone before...
- At 9:04 AM +1200 8/2/05, Maggie Forest wrote:
>It would be really useful if people could qualify their needs, sinceWhat would be even more useful for avoiding exploding into meta
>that could perhaps stop us from exploding into meta discussions so
>often, but I'm not holding out much hope...
discussions so often is if:
1) People would assume others are _not_ judging them (or anyone
else), instead of assuming they are.
2) People would assume that if someone asks for suggestions on a
mailing list called "Authentic_SCA", they are indeed asking for
suggestions for what they could do to be more authentic, not asking
for absolution or approval to just keep doing whatever less authentic
thing they're already doing.
Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
- --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Carlson"
> --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Greg Lindahl <lindahl@p...>wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 03:01:48AM -0000, ketamina06 wrote:this
> >> Are there really members of this discussion list who think such
> >> compromises should be made? I don't really think so, and to see
> >> discussion go as far as it has is kind of scary.choices
> > Cariadoc doesn't wear glasses at events -- but he doesn't get
> > headaches from doing so. Nor does he comment on anyone else's
> > to wear or not wear their glasses.own
> I certainly don't have a problem with headaches without my glasses,
> but what do I know, I obviously need to have my head examined since
> I'm clearly willing to occasionally set aside mere comfort for my
> personal goals of honoring those who've gone before...For you it is comfort you set aside, and by doing so it apparently
brings you some measure of pleasure and happiness the same way hand-
sewing a garment does to someone who normally uses a machine to do
But even for those who don't get headaches, who might instead feel
they are endangering themselves or others or simply feel that not
seeing what's going on around them clearly enough, is it wrong for
them to not sacrifice their glasses? Do YOU view them as wrong, or
as 'not going the extra step'? It's not as if they are carrying a
purse or not making any attempt at proper dress (by proper dress, I
mean anything aside from mundane clothing).
Most people I personally know in the SCA spend time deciding how far
they are willing to go, and weigh the happiness aspect. Many decide
to keep their glasses, etc, because without them it would be a much
less pleasurable experience.
Is that so bad? I don't think so, and it doesn't make them any less
deserving of rewards of effort toward authenticity.