SC - earning awards

[R. Del Boccio]

> I disagree.  I think it's more like asking if a blind person who recieved a
> Laurel for embroidery came by it fairly.  In the past, old ladies continued
> to sew and knit and spin after going blind, so it's certainly not impossible...

Laura Ingalls Wilder commented that her blind sister Mary's embroidery and sewing was far
better than hers.

> but, one has to wonder if the end product is of suitable quality, if the person
> is able to perform appropriate research and to teach her skills effectively.

Why does one _have to_ wonder? One might wonder _how_, but not necessarily _whether_. For
instance, if a blind person got their laurel in embroidery for, say, whitework or pulled
work, she could certain check her student's work by TOUCHING it. In fact I would assume
that for one accustomed to embroidering by feel, they could evaluate work MUCH more
accurately by feeling it! As for research, one would assume that they had the help of a
reader and perhaps someone who could trace pictures into a touchable format.

>But, given the SCA's focus on that one
> area of knighthood, it's still incredible.  Not knowing the person myself, I
> have no way of knowing for sure if he did acheive it fairly.  Chivalry dictates
> that I assume that he did, and I'm perfectly happy to give him the benefit of
> the doubt.  But that phrase - Benefit of the Doubt - implies that there is doubt,
> or at least a slight wondering. 

Let's face it: unless one is an expert in some particular SCA activity, one has no way of
knowing for sure if ANYONE achieved an award fairly. And even so, one may not share the
opinions of those who gave him/her the award, or their priorities.
 
- -- 
Jadwiga Zajaczkowa, mka Jennifer Heise	      jenne at mail.browser.net
disclaimer: i speak for no-one and no-one speaks for me.
"It's no use trying to be clever-- we are all clever here; just try
to be kind -- a little kind." F.J. Foakes-Jackson