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

Re: Pennsic Letter

Poster: "H L. Falls" <hlf@holmes.acc.virginia.edu>

> Quoth Kevin Maxson <kevin@maxson.com>:
> Dominica Harlan wrote:
> > 
> > Likewise, does it cause all those who have commented so far
> > physical or mental anguish when those wearing "inappropriate" clothing are > > in view? 
> In the case of children wearing S&M, it appears it did cause mental 
> anguish to the lady who mentioned this.  

Unfortunately, *anything* you do will upset *somebody*.  I've even heard 
some folks condemn the SCA, but I doubt you want to ban *that*!
> > The *point* of Pennsic when last I checked was to have a really good time
> > with a really big group of people.
> Let's clarify that:  "The point of Pennsic is to have a really good time
> with a really big group of people in the Society for Creative
> Anachronism."
> Would you agree that is still correct?
   Actually, no.  While hosted by/under the auspices of the SCA, Pennsic
has a *loooonnnggg* tradition of being open to other, loosely related
groups (Tuchux, Marklanders, and others), and indeed dates back to a time 
when the SCA itself was a whole lot more relaxed and laid back.  I
personally (and yes, this is just my unsupported opinion) think that it's
way too late to try to put this particular genie back in the bottle...
> > Are you really going to tell someone who paid $80 plus whatever they
> > invested into camping supplies that they have to leave the game because you
> > don't like how they look/act/etc.?
> Unfortunately, yes.  $80 doesn't buy them any rights.  
> Will the police really tell someone who's paid for a driver's license
> plus whatever they've invested into an 1989 Pontiac Trans Am GTA with a
> Thrustmaster 3" mandrel bent exhaust that they have to leave the highway
> because they don't like how they act?  <sigh>  Yes.  And they'll make
> you pay extra and try to throw you in jail and you've got to get a
> lawyer, and ... I digress.
> If I want to drive my car at stupid-fast speeds, I should sign up on the
> drag list at Old Dominion Speedway.
   Personally, I think your analogy would be a bit closer to the mark
if you were being arrested/banned from the road because somebody didn't
like your paint job...
[more snippage...]

> > People
> > treated thusly will leave, not change their minds and play by your rules,
> > and some very cool folk may go.
> This is of course the tragedy.  We need to focus on the fact that we
> want the bikinis to come off, 

   Hey yeah!!!  I like this idea!  ;)

>                               not that we want to people to go.  If
> handled properly, we should be able to tell the people, "I want you to
> stay and have fun with us, but I want you to wear something different to
> play with us."
   Actually, I quite agree.  And I think "courts" and such are the wrong way 
to approach this goal.
> > A greater effort to help one's peers
> > establish periodicity is a much better way to handle what you see as
> > problem garb than to bring someone you find offensive before a jury of
> > strangers.
> Perio.. per.. periodi... how do you pronounce that?  ;)

   How about perioidity???  :-)
[even still yet more...]

> > Frankly, I think we're back to the whole dead horse of Fun vs. Period and
> > I'm disappointed to see that the argument has been allowed to reach the
> > stage where one side gets to hold court on the other.
> It's not about us vs. them, it's about purpose.  "Fun" and "period"
> don't have to be at odds.

   You know that, Kilmeny knows that, I know that...  Problem is when
some people think that "fun" means beating up on other people for not
conforming to their notions of "Period"...

>                            The "side" that's holding court (now a
> review) are the authority.  They're the event organizers.  Pennsic is
> not a public venue, it's a private party.
   Ummm, well... no, not really.  If they were holding a *private* party 
their own back yard, yeah...  Carrying your logic to its absurd conclusion, 
they could declare Pennsic "Elizabethian only" if they wanted...
> > Crimes against
> > persons and laws are one thing. Crimes of fashion or taste are too trivial
> > to be treated with so much respect as to be subject to a "Court".
> Well, they've obviously modified the terminology on this one.  A
> "seneschals' review" sounds more appropriate, and better communicates
> what I think their purpose is to be.
   I dunno, a rose by any other name...
> So much for me being Devil's Advocate.  I should mention my personal
> feelings on this are fairly simple, and similar to Logan's.  (What did I
> just say?)

   Actually, me too...  In the unlikely event that I find somebody to
take care of my dog so I can go to Pennsic, I'll just be my unobtrusive
old viking self...  :)
> The consequences don't apply to me.  If I play the game they're
> sponsoring, if I follow the rules (whch are there for me to see seven
> months prior to the event) I won't be bothered.  If I will see fewer
> people in jeans and T-shirts, smoking, in line for the porta-castles
> because of it, great.  If I can sleep easier because people are quiet
> after hours, and be well-rested for my next morning's beating on the
> field, great.  If my friends can go to someone to complain about
> neighbors taking their land without having to confront the members of
> Satan's Bloody Teeth personally, great.
> If all this can be done with minimal offense to the offenders, increase
> peace, love and happy chocolate - and maintain attendance, fantastic.

   *HEY!!!*  Chocolate's not period!!!!  [G,D,RLH!!!]
> We'll just have to see.
> _____
> |+^+|  Kevin of Thornbury
> |/+\|  (Kevin Maxson)
>  \_/   kevin@maxson.com   http://www.atlantia.sca.org

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