[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: Stability in the Upper Echelons

Poster: Wynn Klosky <klosky@meeker.UCAR.EDU>

On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, David H Ritterskamp wrote:
> off subject onto was really Peers Without Precedents.  Strangely enough,
> they're related.  I think that H.E. Ct. Daffyth brought up quite a valid
> assumption; namely, that the Establishment (Knights, peers, whatever)
> tends to suck up the best potential Peers, leaving not very much for
> anybody else.  One wonders if this is the best course of action (since it
> has been amply demonstrated that this (in the case of heavy fighting,
> anyway) tends to strip the local Baronies of most of their decent
> potential leadership; but that's another story.

I don't think Dafydd made the assumption you state, and certainly
not the part about leftovers. I think he simply made the observation
that peers often take students who are already gifted in their respective
fields (or something similar...don't shoot me), no inference attached.
And certainly not the inference that this takes away from local

My local group would be very disappointed to learn that they have
been being ripped off all this time... :^) Especially if it had been
amply demonstrated...


List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org