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

Re: additional Peerage Proposal ....final comments

Expand Messages
  • Beth Kilburn
    Yes, it does! Thank you for clearing that up for me! Eibhlin
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes, it does! Thank you for clearing that up for me!
      Eibhlin


      --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Scheid" <damales@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Master Damales Redbeard, When you say, "no service is service you can get a
      > pelican for anything in this group it just a measure of work for the group",
      > what exactly does that mean?
      >
      > Eibhlin
      >
      > -in simple terms work is work. pelicans are the work horses. It does not
      > matter if your cleaning toilets or out standing in the sun marshalling if
      > you are doing service to the group. You are doing the work that pelicans
      > recognized for. I have seen more then one archery and rapier pel made for
      > there "work" to better the game.
      >
      > Make since?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----------
      >
      >
      > No virus found in this outgoing message.
      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.45/2285 - Release Date: 08/06/09 05:57:00
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • John edgerton
      But the intent of the proposals is to gain peerage recognition for those that have the peerage level qualifications and excel in the skills of one of those
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        But the intent of the proposals is to gain peerage recognition for
        those that have the peerage level qualifications and excel in the
        "skills" of one of those fields, e.g. archery, rapier, equestrian,
        etc. If you do service, it is a Pelican. If you do arts and science
        work or research it is a Laurel.

        Jon

        On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Dan Scheid wrote:

        >
        >
        > Master Damales Redbeard, When you say, "no service is service you
        > can get a
        > pelican for anything in this group it just a measure of work for
        > the group",
        > what exactly does that mean?
        >
        > Eibhlin
        >
        > -in simple terms work is work. pelicans are the work horses. It
        > does not
        > matter if your cleaning toilets or out standing in the sun
        > marshalling if
        > you are doing service to the group. You are doing the work that
        > pelicans
        > recognized for. I have seen more then one archery and rapier pel
        > made for
        > there "work" to better the game.
        >
        > Make since?
        >
        > ----------
        >
        > No virus found in this outgoing message.
        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.45/2285 - Release Date:
        > 08/06/09 05:57:00
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Beth Kilburn
        I actually agree that the OL isn t the place for non-rattan combat peerage skill recognition, at least not as the OL stands now and it I don t think it d be
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I actually agree that the OL isn't the place for non-rattan combat peerage skill recognition, at least not as the OL stands now and it I don't think it'd be fair to change the OL to accomodate combat to go along side A&S in the same peerage group unless all peerage belong to the same group, but the SCA has advanced way beyond that point. Ok, right now I'm just rambling, huh? That's why a fourth peerage is preferable.

          Guess I should've stated my disagreement to even that particular part - that if non-rattan combat peerage skill recognition be side by side with another peerage, then Chivarly be considered. But is that something that should be considered? Maybe it would just be easier on everyone involved if a fourth peerage be made. Is peerage skill non-rattan combat the only peerage skill level not already covered? Might should consider them, too, if any, while we're at it... Ok, I'm starting to get a headache now.



          --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Scheid" <damales@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > I apologize for not knowing one who excels in horsemanship would be able to
          > maybe achieve peerage in OL. Given that, aside from the equestrian part of
          > my statement, I'm still under the impression a fourth peerage or an
          > "amendment" to OL should still be seriously considered.
          >
          >
          >
          > Eibhlin._,__
          >
          > I will respectfully disagree. And here is why . Art and science are
          > something that is insulted. Your goal is to make the best widget you can or
          > to develop the best theory on how the moon moves. I does not matter what you
          > friend is doing. The goal is for YOU to do the best You can.
          >
          > COMBAT is 180 deg. Different. Your goal is to best your opponent. . You do
          > not have to pull your bow absolutely correctly to get a shot on your
          > opponent. You can bounce all over you horses back if you can place your
          > lance on his shield . You goal is not to make it perfect. Your goal it to
          > make your opponent to miss or to make a mistake.
          >
          > See the difference? This is why I feel it should be place in the Chivalry
          >
          > Damales
          >
          > _
          >
          >
          > ----------
          >
          >
          > No virus found in this outgoing message.
          > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.45/2285 - Release Date: 08/06/09 05:57:00
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • i_griffen
          ... I Also have see people over looked for doing the above. the main reason given (was because their personal opinion and ideal were different)
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 6, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Scheid" <damales@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Master Damales Redbeard, When you say, "no service is service you can get a
            > pelican for anything in this group it just a measure of work for the group",
            > what exactly does that mean?
            >
            > Eibhlin
            >
            > -in simple terms work is work. pelicans are the work horses. It does not
            > matter if your cleaning toilets or out standing in the sun marshalling if
            > you are doing service to the group. You are doing the work that pelicans
            > recognized for. I have seen more then one archery and rapier pel made for
            > there "work" to better the game.
            >
            > Make since?
            >
            >
            >
            >
            I Also have see people over looked for doing the above. the main reason given (was because their personal opinion and ideal were different)
          • Sandra Rangel
            The problem is that it looks good on paper to say non rattan combat should be encompassed in Chivalry. But when you read about Chivalry it states prowess in
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 6, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              The problem is that it looks good on "paper" to say non rattan combat
              should be encompassed in Chivalry. But when you read about Chivalry it
              states prowess in tournaments. That said, name me what crown
              tournament allowed for an archer or rapier combatant to compete?? And
              add in the fact that if you don't know or practice "sword and board"
              its doesn't matter what non rattan discipline you excel in you will
              most likely dare I say not be considered for a peerage in Chivalry.
              Hence the reasoning behind a fourth peerage. :)

              Advance thought on the other end of the spectrum is that as a peer you
              a laurel, knight or pelican of the SCA not such-n-such Kingdom. So how
              can a peerage be created if not every Kingdom has rapier or combat
              archery. Then (rambling on myself lol) one could argue back that not
              every Kingdom has soap makers but they could still obtain a peerage in
              OL.

              This is like a circle....round and round the debate can go. But its
              good... It can bring change or at the very least an awareness of a
              long standing issue in the way we allow ourselves and other to play
              the game.

              ~Rohesia

              On 8/6/09, Beth Kilburn <iamanirishrose@...> wrote:
              > I actually agree that the OL isn't the place for non-rattan combat peerage
              > skill recognition, at least not as the OL stands now and it I don't think
              > it'd be fair to change the OL to accomodate combat to go along side A&S in
              > the same peerage group unless all peerage belong to the same group, but the
              > SCA has advanced way beyond that point. Ok, right now I'm just rambling,
              > huh? That's why a fourth peerage is preferable.
              >
              > Guess I should've stated my disagreement to even that particular part - that
              > if non-rattan combat peerage skill recognition be side by side with another
              > peerage, then Chivarly be considered. But is that something that should be
              > considered? Maybe it would just be easier on everyone involved if a fourth
              > peerage be made. Is peerage skill non-rattan combat the only peerage skill
              > level not already covered? Might should consider them, too, if any, while
              > we're at it... Ok, I'm starting to get a headache now.
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Scheid" <damales@...> wrote:
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> I apologize for not knowing one who excels in horsemanship would be able
              >> to
              >> maybe achieve peerage in OL. Given that, aside from the equestrian part of
              >> my statement, I'm still under the impression a fourth peerage or an
              >> "amendment" to OL should still be seriously considered.
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> Eibhlin._,__
              >>
              >> I will respectfully disagree. And here is why . Art and science are
              >> something that is insulted. Your goal is to make the best widget you can
              >> or
              >> to develop the best theory on how the moon moves. I does not matter what
              >> you
              >> friend is doing. The goal is for YOU to do the best You can.
              >>
              >> COMBAT is 180 deg. Different. Your goal is to best your opponent. . You
              >> do
              >> not have to pull your bow absolutely correctly to get a shot on your
              >> opponent. You can bounce all over you horses back if you can place your
              >> lance on his shield . You goal is not to make it perfect. Your goal it to
              >> make your opponent to miss or to make a mistake.
              >>
              >> See the difference? This is why I feel it should be place in the Chivalry
              >>
              >> Damales
              >>
              >> _
              >>
              >>
              >> ----------
              >>
              >>
              >> No virus found in this outgoing message.
              >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              >> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.45/2285 - Release Date: 08/06/09
              >> 05:57:00
              >>
              >>
              >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >>
              >
              >
              >

              --
              Sent from my mobile device
            • George Ledbury
              ... what you are saying is that if you are not a heavy fighter you have no chivalry and if you are a Knight you do you don t know the same knights I do if you
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 9, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Dan Scheid wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > I need to make some correction before this gets out of hand .. post
                > inserted
                > below.
                >
                > _____
                >
                > From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                > <mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com>
                > [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                > <mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com>] On
                > Behalf Of Beth Kilburn
                > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:29 AM
                > To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com>
                > Subject: [SCA-Archery] Re: additional Peerage Proposal ....final comments
                >
                > Hi, all! Just wanted to put in my 2 cents. Below is most of the feedback I
                > myself sent to the SCA comments email address...
                > Eibhlin
                >
                > I am for either a fourth Peerage (preferrable) or officially making a
                > Peerage recognition "the other half" of OL (if that makes it easier to
                > swallow) even though that may not make much sense, having A&S as one
                > half &
                > weapons/equestrian as the other half. I am still relatively new to the
                > SCA.
                > I have no rank, nor am I in a Peerage group. The Chivalry is for Knights
                > (oath of fealty) & Mastery of Arms (no oath of fealty), the Laurels have
                > theirs for excellence in A&S, and the Pelicans have theirs for
                > excellence in
                > service. What about those of us who do not do heavy combat or have yet to
                > excel in A&S or may never hold a kingdom/society level office?
                >
                > There is a Peerage for those who do great service to their kingdom with
                > heavy weapons but not a Peerage for those who do great service with
                > non-rattan weapons?
                >
                > / no service is service you can get a pelican for anything in this
                > group it
                > just a measure of work for the group
                >
                > There is a Peerage to include those who do beautiful & delicate embroidery
                > but not for those who know how to handle a beautiful horse on a field?
                >
                > Wrong again riding well can get you invited into the order of the Laurel.
                > (I know that's how I got invited)
                >
                > It definitely seems to me that since there is Peerage recognition for some
                > who excel but not for all who excel, that a slight re-organization can be
                > done in order that all who are dedicated (to learning about x,
                > participating
                > in x, & teaching others what they've learned about x so that they too may
                > excel in x) might have equal opportunity to attain Peerage status.
                >
                > What is at odds here is NON RATTAN COMBAT. This is a whole in our group
                > that does not fit in service, A&S or Rattan combat (chivalry)
                >
                > Damales Redbeard O.L.
                >
                > --- In SCA-Archery@ <mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com>
                > yahoogroups.com,
                > "tibbiecroser" <kmackavanagh@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > I personally don't favor the proposal, but I commend Sir Jon and his
                > collaborators for working very hard, through the proper channels, to
                > try to
                > effect changes they want. There are many, many people on SCA lists who
                > repeatedly gripe about how this or that should be banned, but they never
                > *do* anything to get the rules changed.
                > >
                > > Tibbie Croser, Barony of Storvik, Kingdom of Atlantia, fencer and
                > possible
                > future target archer
                > >
                > > --- In SCA-Archery@ <mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com>
                > yahoogroups.com, "i_griffen" <i_griffen@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > During the past 10 years You have been putting this in front of the
                > Board of Directors. They have been rejecting it You rewrite is again and
                > then resubmit is again it is rejected. When are you going to stop forcing
                > this issue. You are a triple Peer. I get the feeling you are doing
                > this only
                > so you can have another Peerage.
                > > >
                > > > It may be a good idea to let the dead horse stay dead
                > > >
                > > > Iain Griffen
                > > >
                > >
                >
                > ----------
                >
                > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.45/2285 - Release Date:
                > 08/06/09 05:57:00
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                what you are saying is that if you are not a heavy fighter you have no
                chivalry and if you are a Knight you do you don't know the same knights
                I do if you think that is atomatic
              • Dan Scheid
                By caporal Chivalry Is the name of the order no more no less Damales ... _,___ ... No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 9, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  By caporal Chivalry Is the name of the order no more no less

                  Damales
                  >
                  >
                  >what you are saying is that if you are not a heavy fighter you have no
                  >chivalry and if you are a Knight you do you don't know the same knights
                  >I do if you think that is atomatic



                  _,___


                  ----------


                  No virus found in this outgoing message.
                  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.48/2292 - Release Date: 08/09/09 08:08:00


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.