miller at pp.okstate.edu
Tue Jul 25 11:00:06 PDT 1995
[much stuff deleted]
> >I assume that he's capable of change if he so desires. If he doesn't
> >desire to do so, well, that's tough for all of us, but I'm willing
> >to bear with it.
> Have a good time. Some of us aren't.
Well, that's unfortunate. Certainly, I'd prefer that nobody hurt,
bash, stomp, or flame anybody else on this list. And that was my
point from the beginning: _nobody_ hurt, bash, stomp, or flame
_anybody_ else on this list. Two wrongs don't make a right. You
can throw in all the qualifiers in the world, and you still won't
change my mind about that. I don't even think you'll be able to
convince me that it's a necessary evil, but you can try.
> >I would question whether or not ignoring (as opposed to attacking)
> >boorish behavior, personal attacks, etc contributes to the rising
> >number of thefts in the SCA....
> They are both, to me, symptomatic of a greater ill.
OK, I'll grant you that. I agree that we should not ignore boorish
behavior, personal attacks, etc. What I do object to is attacking
personal attacks with personal attacks. Some people on this list
have very eloquently and politely asked Michael to tone down his
language etc. I even posted in response to one of his messages.
That's fine. I asked Wolf Star to move their party back to their camp
at Interkingdom (and they very kindly complied). But I did it nicely
and politely, and if they had refused, well, that's when I would have
gone back to my tent and stuck some earplugs in. I wouldn't have gotten
belligerant with them or called them names or made threats against them
etc. That would only have caused an escalation of unpleasantness.
I'm sorry, but if people don't understand what the dream is all
about, they're not going to understand. I just don't feel that _I_
have the right to "enforce" those principles, and, in fact, I feel
that "enforcement" is antithetical to what the dream is all about.
How can you "force" somebody to be chivalric and polite and still be
chivalric and polite yourself? You can ask them politely to
cooperate, and you can lead by example, but I don't see many other
> >I would be more likely to argue that the sheer growth of the Society
> >coupled with a moral decline in society as a whole are far more likely
> >culprits. In any case, do we govern our ranks by example, or by the whip?
> Where? In the SCA? I thought we governed by bad mouthing them behind
> their backs
> >> Once upon a time, you could go to an SCA thing and assume that you would be
> >> respected enough to not be attacked, or stolen from. Now we have these
> >> little "problems" starting to arise because of the attitude that "well, we
> >> don't want to interfere with their fun"...
> >How do you construe that? What sort of problems? Can you give
> Of what? Being attacked, or being stolen from? I consider those problems,
> don't you?
Yes, but I can tell we're probably not going to agree on how to go
about fixing them. :-) I disagree that an attitude of "well, we
don't want to interfere with their fun" is what is causing the
increase of unpleasantness. I was wondering what you considered the
precise nature of that connection to be. I'm having a hard time
seeing how measures to decrease the number of thefts are interfering
with somebody's fun, perhaps. Telling people not to leave their
armor by the list field overnight? What exactly are you suggesting
we are/are not/need to do, here? And perhaps this should be made a
subject of its own, because it is something which affects us all.
> >Whatever happened to the principle of "turn the other cheek"? I
> >suppose I'd rather be a doormat with "Welcome" written on it than a
> >door saying "Keep Out".
> I fail to see what has led you to the implied conclusion we're talking
> about "keeping out". >There's a wide gulf between expecting simple
> courtesy and telling people not to come around. I'm sorry that you
> feel that I would prefer Litch not participate at all.
I said it because it seemed like a beautiful statement about
differences in attitude and hospitality. But you're right, you
weren't talking about "keeping out", so it was a misplaced sentiment
in the context of our discussion. However, it's one thing to
"expect" simple courtesy, and another when you try to coerce it
with hurtful language.
> >> >The real trick is to teach the people who he offends to ignore him before
> >> >they are driven off.
> >> Why?
> >"Welcome! Come on in! Have a good time!" = good, desirable thing.
> >I'm certain I read that _somewhere_ in my book of human relations.
> THAT isn't what you said, though, now is it? You said "teach the people
> who he offends to ignore him". The only person you are saying should
> feel welcome, to have a good time is Litch.
This is the main reason I felt I had to respond to your post.
I don't recall ever having said that, or even insinuating it. I think
you're just trying to push my buttons, because I think you know me
better than that. But just in case, let me reiterate: I want
_everyone_ to be welcome, _including_ Michael. If he refuses to play
by our rules, I don't want to see him thrown out, and I don't want to see
him verbally bludgeoned. Those things violate _my_ views of
hospitality. That leaves the option of ignoring him, trying to
set a better example, trying to like him for who and what he is,
and _politely_ reminding him when he's being offensive. (Most of the
time I opt for ignoring him or trying to like him for who and what he
Obviously, we're not all going to get along, and I call myself an
idiot because I heartily wish we all would. Unfortunately none of us
are saints, and we find it difficult to forgive and forget.
It's not an ideal world, and we disagree on how to go about trying to
make it more ideal than it is. Oh well.
Is the horse dead yet?
Shire of Mooneschadowe
miller at pp.okstate.edu
More information about the Ansteorra