Hospitality

[Leslie Miller]

[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 
options... 

> >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

Heh, heh.

> >> 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 
> >examples?
> 
> 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 
is.)

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?

Gunhilda
Shire of Mooneschadowe
Stillwater, OK
miller at pp.okstate.edu