Being a survey on Personas
LIB_IMC at centum.utulsa.edu
Thu Jun 27 15:44:54 PDT 1996
>> prefer 1620, 1650, and to just by some of the outfits worn at some events
>> I've attended, there's a subtle nod to 1700...
>I know. What do you think about that? ;)
*Opinion Alert* If you are EASILY offended by criticisms of the SCA, then
delete or move on NOW.
It's not something I'm particularly concerned about one way or the other.
You may have seen some of the things I've had to say regarding "Standards"
in the SCA, but if you've missed those comments, I honestly don't think
there are any. While I would *prefer* reasonably strict standards, I do
recognize that if I keep expecting them in the Society, I will be continually
disappointed. I also don't feel that it's my place to tell anyone else how
THEY should play their "Game", even if it's not the way I would prefer to
play. Finally, I tend to reject the hypocrisy of a specific cut off date,
when the rules regarding "Western European" personas are disregarded
(and I do not mean this to say that I have anything against the Japanese,
Mongol, Arabic, or what have you -- I'm just simply noting that Arabs,
Mongols, Japanese, ECW, Roman Era Britains, Vampires, Elves and Klingons
are equally alien to a fourteenth Century Irishman, even one living in
England). Does this mean that I think we should have all sorts of weird
things in? Not really. I would prefer it if we were to actually work
with the rules we have purportedly set, but if we aren't going to, then
why bother with them at all?
More information about the Ansteorra