[Ansteorra] Was (a long time ago) Question 4/24 (change). Now: the "P" word.

[GCOM]

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.
>
> Burke
>


> 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 point.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> <snip>
>> Marc/Diarmaid
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra
>