[Sca-cooks] Redaction?

[Alex Clark]

At 09:26 PM 9/20/2003 -0700, Elaine de Montgris wrote:
>Well folks, welcome to one of the reasons why about 90% of list list is
>going directly into the trash, with only a glance at the first sentence or so.
>
>Alex, I don't know you. Nor am I likely to. Given the behavior I've seen
>you display in the past few days, I am quite content that things remain as
>they are. . . .

If you give only a glance at the first sentence or so, what behavior do you 
really see? If you hadn't condemned me so hastily you could have seen that 
time and again I was trying to defend myself against people whose arguments 
were simplistic and dogmatic, who (as you quoted me saying) often refused 
to acknowledge my rebuttals to the same arguments that they were repeating 
again, and who (like you) are increasingly blaming me because I point out 
the unfair or thoughtless things that others say in this discussion (I'll 
have to stop doing that). The truth seems to be that I raised a topic that 
brings out the worst in a few established members of your in-group, but 
because they are your in-group you judge them by a different standard. If 
you want to blame someone, they're so much harder for you to blame, 
regardless of who said what. So the exact details, of who said what, don't 
count.

>You certainly are not contributing to the free and
>productive discourse . . .

Please read my posts on smokehouses, galantine, Louisville, peacock, and 
even (though you're welcome to disagree with my usage of "redaction") 
"redaction help." Then you might have something to say about what I have 
contributed. Furthermore, the only people who have dropped hints that 
anyone should be silenced have *not* been me. I'm in favor of free discourse.

This will be my last answer on this thread to an argument that is against 
me in general and that is not about actual and specified (not merely 
interpreted) facts.

>You walzed into a community, one which had a working, though
>maybe not absolutely perfect, definition for a word . . .

I have been in the SCA since 1983, and sporadically for years before that. 
Back when I got started "redaction," was not standard terminology, and I 
don't see why newcomers should be on that bandwagon. Check out the KWH 
articles, which say "version", "developing a recipe", and "adaptation", but 
(I'm pretty sure) not "redaction". The one early usage of "redaction" that 
I know of appears in a bibliography in TI 74, in which it is largely 
interchangeable with "adaptation", "redapted", "readapted", "re-adaption", 
and "readaptation". I am not making any of these up. Such are the tangled 
roots of the usage of "redaction" in the SCA.

Alex Clark/Henry of Maldon