cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message
admin-gtesuph1_at_gtesuphub1 at ccnet.gtes.com
Fri Jul 18 18:53:15 PDT 1997
Message is undeliverable.
Reason: Unable to access cc:Mail Post office.
Please retry later.
Original text follows:
-------------- next part --------------
Received: from imail.gtes.com by ccnet.gtes.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R6.00.02)
; Fri, 18 Jul 97 19:03:03 -0600
Return-Path: <root at imail.gtes.com>
Received: from [188.8.131.52] by imail.gtes.com
(SMTPD32-3.03) id A5E2120100EC; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 19:10:10 -0500
Received: (from majordom at localhost)
by bastion.globeset.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA32281
for ansteorra-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:39:08 -0500
Received: from smtp2.utexas.edu (smtp2.utexas.edu [184.108.40.206])
by bastion.globeset.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA32278
for <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:39:07 -0500
Received: (qmail 11340 invoked from network); 18 Jul 1997 22:39:05 -0000
Received: from mail.utexas.edu (220.127.116.11)
by smtp2.utexas.edu with SMTP; 18 Jul 1997 22:39:05 -0000
Received: from slip-109-18.ots.utexas.edu (slip-109-18.ots.utexas.edu [18.104.22.168])
by mail.utexas.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA31363
for <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:39:03 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:39:03 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199707182239.RAA31363 at mail.utexas.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.utexas.edu: slip-109-18.ots.utexas.edu [22.214.171.124] didn't use HELO protocol
X-Sender: amazing at mail.utexas.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
From: amazing at mail.utexas.edu (dennis grace)
Subject: Re: SCA Purchases
Sender: owner-ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
Reply-To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
Resent-From: <agulick at imail.gtes.com>
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 97 19:10:26 EST
Resent-To: agulick at ccnet
In response to the question concerning condoms in the chirurgeon's kit, wolf
>> ... Should we pay for such items?
>no. nor should you be in any way expected to provide what is a
>*clearly* a matter of personal responsibility. if the sub-set of
>people who require them want to *donate* the actual items (condoms)
>or funds to purchase them (or replace those that were used ...)
>that's another matter entirely.
Quick point: sex happens. With or without birth control, with or without
extensive thought given, with or without the means to deal with any
less-than-desireable outcome, sex happens. The world we live in provides
more than adequate proof of that; sex is, after, why we're all here in
One could just as easily claim that if a fighters want to fight, then they
should provide their own first aid supplies, as taking care of one's self
physically in a voluntary activity is, to quote the good wolf, "*clearly* a
matter of personal responsibility."
The question of how much who pays for what to go into a first-aid kit is not
new, and will probably be dragged out on a fairly regular basis. However, if
we're concerned for our members' physical well-being, including a few
condoms for the unlucky (or lucky, depending on your perspective ;->)
individual who has need of such a device and has either left theirs at home,
had one break, or what have you, is the only really considerate thing to do.
Unless, of course, you're one of those who believe that sex is evil and that
those engaging in it deserve any disease or unwanted pregnancy that
develops; quite frankly that type of folk have always struck me as just not
very nice or caring folk.
As to the SCA being "responsible" for the purchase of condoms, I don't
believe there's any rule anywhere that holds the SCA responsible for the
purchase and distribution of such supplies (or first-aid supplies, for that
matter). I do believe that it's a good idea. If there are enough folk who
don't like the idea of subsidizing safe sex (as opposed to unprotected sex),
the chirurgeons can just require reimbursement from the condom purchaser.
I have a really hard time believing a group actually said "no" to including
condoms in their kits. I personally would rather subsidize condoms than have
ultimately higher insurance rates and the results of unwanted pregnancies.
Providing condoms does not equate to subsidizing sex. Providing condoms
equates much more appropriately to preventing potential health problems
related to sex. BIG difference.
So, let the flames (though of a different passion ;->) begin.
More information about the Ansteorra