[Sca-cooks] I quit

[Jeff.Gedney at Dictaphone.com]

> What do the rest of you think?  Can we?  Can we, as a rather large group
> from all over the SCA, start a campaign to force the BoD to make
> handicapped-accessible sites a requirement for events?
>
> Kiri
nope, bad idea.
and needlessly draconian, for that matter.

Why do I say that?
Because a ridiculously high percentage of the inexpensive halls
campgrounds and other such budget wise venues are NOT handicapped
accessible.
Such a rule would eliminate a LOT of SCA friendly halls, and thereby raise
the average cost of events in the SCA by an extraordinary degree.
In enforcing that all sites have preinstalled access to the handicapped,
we may just price the handicapped out of the event in the first place (A
lot of disabled and handicapped are living on short incomes to begin
with). So the net effect of such a rule might concievably be to raise the
price of all but a few events, and to no good effect.

Oops, and let's not forget that "SCA EVENT" includes all SCA meetings and
practices.


We need to focus on the REAL problem here.

And the "accessibility" of the site is NOT it.

The PROBLEM is the ATTITUDE of the people that were described in Gorgeous' posting.
Those attitudes were execreble, inexcusable and unchilvalrous.
And you can quote me to whomever you wish.

If a gentle needs aid, there are plenty of ways to help them. (except in
the Bathroom, I suppose, and there may even be ways to accomplish that
without permanent installations.  A whole lot can be done with a couple of
hundred dollars of plywood and twobyfours, and some willing strong backs
to serve as porters, and those assets can be reused. Handicapped
accessible portijohns are now available in every city. )
All it takes is a little creativity.

But most of all, what it takes is CARING.

If a rule were made to require that all events were to make reasonable
attempts, where possible, to provide alternatives or access...
THAT would be beneficial.
The would fix the problem attitude.

And the disabled persons would have to live with the fact that there will
be SOME sites that will just not be amenable to them.
Since they certainly face THAT reality everyday, that should not be too
onerous.
So long as they know that they needs and feelings are acknowleged, and
every attempt at including them is made, I doubt that anyone would
complain all THAT much if a few sites fall short of the ideal.

It means a lot to know that people are trying to make provision for you,
and take your problems seriously, and care about your feelings.

That goes a LONG way.

Am I correct in my estimation, Gorgeous?

Brandu