Chivalry and Supporting your Local Monarch RE: [Sca-cooks] re:long peppers, etc.

[grizly]

So, would committing a non-criminal attrocity on an unsuspecting and
defenseless person, to please one's King . . . be unchivalrous?  It's those
vague, vacuous prot-definitions of "chivalrous" that are the bedrock of SCA
political correctness.  Give me something I can hang my hat on, like
Courage, Loyalty, Fidelity, Trustworthy, Courtesy, Generosity, Gentleness,
Compassion Ingenuity, or Love.  Yeah, these have meat you can chew on . . .
and are all parts of what I consider modern Chivarly for my little world
view.  All with the big letters . . . not holding a door for someone running
up to it is not what I mean by Courtesy, though that could be part if it.
don't tell me someone is unchivarlous; that's a buzz word . . . to my he/she
was being cowardly, or disloyal to an oath, or mean-spirited to someone
unable to defend themselves, or dumb as a bag of squirrels.  That we can all
rally behind.

Kinda like "period".  If we all sufficiently avoid actually defining it,
then we can all use it to our own advantage and make it mean pert near
_anything_.

niccolo difrancesco

-----Original Message-----
Yuh. It had long been an observation of mine that you could get most
SCAdians to do just about any dumb-@$$ thing you wanted by claiming
that _not_ doing it would be unchivalrous. I'm now told that this is
no longer the case, and that now, if you want a SCAdian to do
something really exceptionally stupid, you imply that they are
showing insufficient support for their King ;-).

Adamantius>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>