[Ansteorra] Children in the SCA

[Rose]

I appreciate your concern, Alden, although I don't think it's a valid problem, and that the solution to what you see as a problem has already happened. (Also, Heinlein's quote applies only to attorneys that work for people who can afford to bankroll frivolous lawsuits. Attorneys don't swallow camels on a contingency fee.)However, I was curious as to Hosey's opinion and proposed solution, primarily because his goalpost seems to be moving. :)



-R the O

 
*               *               *               *               *               *               *               *               *               *               *               *               *

Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile. ~Hippocrates



>________________________________
> From: Paul DeLisle <ferretpd at gmail.com>
>To: "'Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.'" <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org> 
>Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:52 PM
>Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Children in the SCA
> 
>In the ensuing *years* of testimony, it is *proven* (by witnesses, and his
>own confused testimony) that UpnComin' *must* have seen these two...and yet
>did nothing.
>WOW! The SCA *MUST* be Liable for a GAZILLION DOLLARS in damages.
>
>What I *AM* saying is that our Legal team (whoever they are) needs to set
>*SOMETHING* in motion to delineate that we are *NOT* a Children's
>Organization....we are a child-FRIENDLY Organization (and that distinction
>*MUST* be Legally made....somehow.)
>
>Alden
>(...sadly remembering why I stopped going to events.)
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ansteorra-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org [mailto:ansteorra-
>> bounces at lists.ansteorra.org] On Behalf Of Rose
>> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:51 PM
>> To: Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.; chris st. john
>> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Children in the SCA
>> 
>> Originally, I thought you were upset about changes that you thought were
>> going to happen in the future, but then we pointed out that those changes
>> had already taken place. Then, it seemed like you were upset because you
>> thought it meant you'd have to take an active role in protecting our
>youth,
>> but then we explained that only those who chose to work with children
>> would be expected to do so. Now it seems like you're upset that children
>> come to events at all? Surely, I'm mistaken. What, exactly, is your
>complaint?
>> Also, your proposed solution?
>> 
>> 
>> -Rose the Obnoxious
>