ANST - looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, but its green

[Zimmermann, Lenny]

Valentine wrote:
> > Please do not suggest that those for are only in this for self
> > aggrandizement. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth about 
> the intentions
> of
> > those individuals trying to argue for righting what they 
> perceive as a
> wrong
> > (even if it is a fairly minor one, in my opinion.)
> 
> I didn't remotely make that assertion, Lionardo.  The "you" 
> in my post is a
> general pronoun; I certainly didn't accuse the original 
> writer nor anyone
> else of "self-aggrandizement".  If you're going to guess 
> wildly at what my
> "underlying assumptions" are, we may as well not discuss the issue.

Whoa there! I realized you used a general "you", which is why I said "those
who are for". My statement was not meant as insult, but as an honest
response, whose intention I believe you have now corrected. The only reason
I brought it up is because by stating that if an individual WANTS an award,
they should do the things to get it. I prefer to suggest that we are not
really talking about people who WANT the award, but people who would
otherwise appear to deserve it. Your initial language seemed to imply
otherwise which is why I responded as I did working only with the words I
was given. I thought "Please" was a nicer way to couch my request for
individuals to consider their viewpoints of those involved in the
discussion, not just yourself, but I apparently failed. I apologize for the
insult, then.

> Adding recognition for a particular skill area doesn't 
> necessarily lower the
> current standard for a peerage, I agree.
> 
> However, adding a blanket anything-else peerage does, IMO.  
> Despite the
> subjective nature of the criteria for becoming a Knight, 
> Laurel, or Pelican,
> a general picture of "what is a knight" does exist.  The 
> proposed peerage of
> scouting/shooting/fencing/camping/cooking/traveling/riding has little
> coherency,
> and few common standards.  The greatest trait they have in 
> common is "we
> don't do the other three things".  That's what I think 
> detracts from the
> existing
> standard of peerages.

I can see where you might feel that way and to a certain extent I agree with
you, but that is not the only option available. Boyarin Kazimir pointed
several of the others in his recap of what was discussed on that other list
(which was specifically for the proposal you mentioned.) I would say,
though, that I think if a new Peerage Order were to occur that the
nebulousness would begin to dissipate. Was some of the nebulousness
prevalent when the Pelicans were created? I'm asking as I really do not know
as I was not in the SCA at the time. I also feel that the "second class
citizen" feel of such an Order would disappear over time as well. But then
again, it's just about the last of the options I would like to see anyway.

Honos Servio,
Lionardo Acquistapace, Bjornsborg
(Lenny Zimmermann, San Antonio)
zarlor at acm.org

--------------------
"A soldier uses arms merely with skill, whereas a knight uses them with
virtuous intention."   - Pomponio Torelli, 1596.
--------------------
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.