cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message

postmaster_at_okstate at postmaster_at_okstate at
Sat Jul 19 11:37:17 PDT 1997

Message is undeliverable.
Reason: User "dssweet at" is not found in the cc:Mail Directory.
Original text follows:

-------------- next part --------------
Received: from by (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.00)
	; Sat, 19 Jul 97 12:37:04 -0600
Return-Path: <ansteorra-owner at>
Received: (from majordom at localhost)
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA02368
	for ansteorra-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 12:33:14 -0500
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA02365
	for <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 12:33:13 -0500
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA28886
	for <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 12:32:18 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <33D0F610.364D at>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 12:14:56 -0500
From: SOC STUDIES <camlewis at>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SBXA  (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
Subject: Re: SCA Purchases
References: <33CFCBF2.7043 at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

William H. Herron III wrote:
> I'm glad that we're all having a nice discussion on the purchase of
> alcohol with SCA funds.  It brings up another issue that I've hit in the
> past, and I'll throw it out to see what reactions you all come up with.
> The Barony of Namron (and most other groups, I'm sure) has a first-aid
> kit that is maintained by the chiurgeon.  We always brought it with us
> to events, demos, etc. when we had a reasonable assumption that it would
> get used.
> As a treasurer, I always had the chiurgeon refill the box after its use,
> and reimbursed the chiurgeon off of their receipts.  No problem.
> So, my question is, if the chiurgeon decided to keep some form of birth
> control in the box (and for my example, I'll say condoms), and this was
> a part of supplies used during a weekend, should the SCA be responsible
> for reimbursing that expense?
> I don't want to talk about the legal side of this.  It's a valid
> expenditure, and if I had ever been presented with receipts I would have
> reimbursed without question.  I want to know the opinions that people
> have on the, er, "correctness" of the expense.
> Try not to let personal feelings or beliefs interfere (any more than
> they normally would, anyway).  Should we pay for such items?
> When the issue came up in Namron, we discussed it and agreed that the
> Barony should not be subsidizing, er, such things.  But I think it could
> have gone either way.
> FitzBubba

Is there suntan lotion in the first-aid kit?  If so, shouldn't it be
destributed to the populace at an event to keep them from getting
sunburned?  I have been sunburned at many a SCA event and sure would
have liked to have some suntan lotion to put on.  I am, however, an
adult (some don't believe it though) and therfore responsible for my own
sunburn...should I get something bad, say a third degree sunburn, it
would be my own fault for not bringing my own suntan lotion to the event
to protect myself from the sun...not the SCA's fault for not
destributing it if they even had it.


More information about the Ansteorra mailing list