[ANSTHRLD] Who to Protect? A 1.0 and ABPS version

Darnell Daniels dmage121 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 16 05:52:27 PST 2010


I am the one who started this "debate" and now I am almost regretting that I 
did...almost. It is interesting to see everyone perspective on this topic and to 
see the rulings and prior history. I still think that my original intent was 
misunderstood. I was not looking to eliminate any device, nor was I looking for 
a way to allow someone to assume the device of anyone else. My original intent I 
see is not possible. The stringent rules we have in place for submissions are 
there for a reason, and with a better perspective, I understand for a good 
reason. The more I read the responses the more I saw that if there was a change 
to what is now the standard then the way is opened for deviation from the 
attempted purity of SCA heraldry. The phrase that sealed it was "the right and 
dignity of arms." I now see that earned right should be protected under our 
current ruling no matter what the case unless the owner of that device releases 
it. 

Having listened to you all I submit that I was wrong. Though it might have been 
a question that lead to a healthy debate, the question itself was not a good 
one. Therefore, I withdraw the question with the understanding that I agree with 
the current standards and therefore am against my own question.

Robert of Coleford 
Herald, Shire of Gate's Edge



      


More information about the Heralds mailing list