[Ansteorra] Was (a long time ago) Question 4/24 (change). Now: the "P" word.
bmccrory at oktax.state.ok.us
Tue Apr 27 12:18:03 PDT 2004
At 01:03 PM 4/27/2004, you wrote:
Actually, I was not thinking of Principalities at all. They would suffer
from many of the same problems that a Kingdom would. I was looking at the
fundamental issues of how the SCA works and things like number of reigns
per year, number of events per group, etc.
>Come on Burke, you can go ahead and say the "P" word. You don't have to
>hint around it.
>H.L. Barat FitzWalter Reynolds
>M.K.A. Stephen Pursley
>Barony of Namron
>Kingdom of Ansteorra
>>I have sat and read all of the commentary on this question and a thought
>>has occurred to me. The cost of living (here represented by the price of
>>gas) has always effected how we collectively participate in the SCA. One
>>of the basic tenants of this game is that we can and do travel to the
>>different areas in the Kingdom (you can substitute region, area, barony,
>>etc.). If the cost of travel becomes prohibitive (however you choose
>>measure it) then it seems to me that a change in one of the fundamental
>>aspects of the SCA may have to occur.
>>At 12:24 PM 4/27/2004, you wrote:
>>>>From: Jan Aarons loveofhalesworth at yahoo.com I would agree with most
>>>>of your statement but I don't think the statement below was very fair.
>>>>It >shouldn't matter if you are rich or poor, it only matters how you
>>>>play the game...
>>>I agree, it shouldn't matter. For some people, it does, and that was my
>>>>And yes at this point you could pretty much say he was poor. So, you
>>>>shouldn't say that poor >people shouldn't play in the SCA...
>>>I'm sorry, I thought you were responding to something I had written
>>>(since you quoted something from what I had written). This was clearly
>>>my mistake since you couldn't be responding to what I wrote.
>>>I would never say that poor people should not play in the SCA. In fact
>>>what you were quoting was pointing out that they do, and while it's
>>>easy to dismiss them (the whole "maybe people who are poor shouldn't be
>>>wasting their few funds on a luxury like the SCA" thing, since this is
>>>an argument that has appeared in the past, during the non-member
>>>surcharge thing, as I mentioned -earlier- in the same message), the
>>>contrasting arrogant condescension in the latter part of the sentance
>>>towards those people who DO have money (much less the over all tone of
>>>the message) was a hint that the first part of the sentance was not
>>>written as a criticism of poor people.
>>Ansteorra mailing list
>>Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
>Ansteorra mailing list
>Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
More information about the Ansteorra