"The Sword in Two Hands by Brian Price" review wan

Aerimus13 · Post by **Aerimus13** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:37 pm

Cuan wrote:The SCA is not liable for damages suffered by artisans or authors resulting from Mr. Price's alleged contractual breaches. Nor does the SCA control who merchants at Pennsic (unless that person is otherwise excluded from the SCA). The BoD could R&D Mr. Price but the precedent is not to do so in circumstances that do not directly address the game side of the organization or constitute acts or ommissions that jeopardize the SCA, Inc. That said, we are a private club and can exclude someone for any reason that does not violate public policy (race, religion, etc.). You can take that from a Duke who plays a lawyer about 60-70 hours per week.

I, as a knight familiar with the reputations of many involved, and able to discern for myself the truth when sufficient evidence is placed before me, have decided that Brian is a false knight. I do not say this because he has made mistakes, but because he has not made amends when given the opportunity. And to call them "mistakes" at this point seems generous. The pattern of his dealings evidences intent. I do not have to wait for a court or a king to make this determination for myself. I will not give him rank or title, I will only await him on the field to give him the chance I would any man to defy me with a weapon in his hands.

IF . . . Brian does all in his power to make those he has injured whole, I will reevaluate him and perhaps even consider his place in the pantheon of those who have advanced the study of European martial traditions (where I once held him in great esteem).

I do not know what a king or the BoD may do with this case, but I hope that I have made the positon of one member of the chivalry very clear.

Sir this is all I have been asking of any of the KSCA. You are a shining example of the virtues of knighthood and I commend you for it. If other KSCA went as far you you then it would go along way in restoring my faith.

juan · Post by **juan** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:27 pm

Hrolfr wrote:
Baron Alcyoneus wrote: I can say that I'm President of the Universe, and it has similar legal bearing at the moment.

You mean you are NOT??????????

The extra head and third arm weren't a giveaway?

Keegan Ingrassia · Post by **Keegan Ingrassia** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:30 pm

juan wrote:
Hrolfr wrote:
Baron Alcyoneus wrote: I can say that I'm President of the Universe, and it has similar legal bearing at the moment.

You mean you are NOT??????????

The extra head and third arm weren't a giveaway?

For you.

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:33 pm

edit: weird double post

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:42 pm

Aerimus13 wrote:
Cuan wrote:The SCA is not liable for damages suffered by artisans or authors resulting from Mr. Price's alleged contractual breaches. Nor does the SCA control who merchants at Pennsic (unless that person is otherwise excluded from the SCA). The BoD could R&D Mr. Price but the precedent is not to do so in circumstances that do not directly address the game side of the organization or constitute acts or ommissions that jeopardize the SCA, Inc. That said, we are a private club and can exclude someone for any reason that does not violate public policy (race, religion, etc.). You can take that from a Duke who plays a lawyer about 60-70 hours per week.

I, as a knight familiar with the reputations of many involved, and able to discern for myself the truth when sufficient evidence is placed before me, have decided that Brian is a false knight. I do not say this because he has made mistakes, but because he has not made amends when given the opportunity. And to call them "mistakes" at this point seems generous. The pattern of his dealings evidences intent. I do not have to wait for a court or a king to make this determination for myself. I will not give him rank or title, I will only await him on the field to give him the chance I would any man to defy me with a weapon in his hands.

IF . . . Brian does all in his power to make those he has injured whole, I will reevaluate him and perhaps even consider his place in the pantheon of those who have advanced the study of European martial traditions (where I once held him in great esteem).

I do not know what a king or the BoD may do with this case, but I hope that I have made the positon of one member of the chivalry very clear.

Sir this is all I have been asking of any of the KSCA. You are a shining example of the virtues of knighthood and I commend you for it. If other KSCA went as far you you then it would go along way in restoring my faith.

So all you have been asking of the KSCA is to do nothing? LOL That's what Cuan intends to do. :lol:

Greg Mele · Post by **Greg Mele** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:53 pm

meanwhile, back to the matter at hand...

As I posted last night, Mrs. Price chose to try and contact the authors separately to arrange individual payments, in which property was then charged against the payment, rather than acknowledge our demands. She chose to do so again, today with Dr. Forgeng, and was again rebuffed. I have asked Dr. Forgeng for permission to post his reply here, and will do so if he consents.

In the meantime, for those of you who have been clamoring for the courts to take action, it seems that is precisely what will happen:

To: Ann and Brian Price
d/b/a Chivalry Bookshelf/Revival Enterprises

Re: Return of rights and surrender of product

Dear Mrs. Price,

It is now 6:51 PM CST. Your deadline has passed.

As Dr. Forgeng explained to you, below, signed power of attorney was not required. Nor have you made the slightest attempt to address the letter of demand. However, so that there can be no doubt in the matter, I will ask each of the signatories, herein copied, to reply to this letter and make it clear to you, once and for all, that we indeed stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" as Mr. Tobler told you last night.

I will keep the balance of this letter short and to the point.

Since you have chosen to let the deadline to surrender our rights and property lapse, please note that, our offer is hereby rescinded. We will now pursue any and all civil and criminal avenues that are open to us.

Please note we hereby deny you any rights, assignations or access to our intellectual property, and will post that affect on all public forums. Should you sell any of our property at the upcoming SCA's "Gulf Wars" event, we will consider this be the sale and distribution of stolen goods and we will contact the authorities immediately. You should be aware that I am forwarding this and prior correspondence and the link to the Armour Archive discussion thread to the Gulf Wars event coordinator ("autocrat") and merchant liaison, so that they are aware that you have lost any legal title to our property.

Further, neither you, your husband nor any counsel you should hire are to contact any of the signatories for any reason, except through our attorneys, Mr. Peter Gergley and Mr. George Lewis, who are copied on this letter, and will no doubt be contacting you shortly. Until then, you may reach them at the following:

[ADDRESS DELETED]

I regret that it has come to this, but you have had between three and seven years to resolve these various issues, and have never so much as responded, until it was made public on the Armour Archive. Even then you were offered a way to peaceably solve the matter. As you chose to instead try and "divide and conquer" the signatories, there is clearly no further room for discussion, and the courts will now handle the matter.

Best regards,

Gregory Mele

writing on behalf of:

Gregory Mele
Luca Porzio
Dr. Jeffrey Forgeng
Dr. Steven Muhlberger
Guy Windsor
Christian Henry Tobler
Tom Leoni

DukeAvery · Post by **DukeAvery** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:55 pm

Declare, if thou hast understanding.

Or, upon a pale between 2 pallets azure, each charged with a sword inverted PR, 3 roses Or.

Lady Charlotte · Post by **Lady Charlotte** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:06 pm

Hello, Duke Avery,

DukeAvery wrote:Declare, if thou hast understanding.

Or, upon a pale between 2 pallets azure, each charged with a sword inverted PR, 3 roses Or.

"A heraldic emblem is given to the Knight on his shield and on his coat so that he may be known in battle and so that, if he is brave and does fair deeds of arms, he may be praised by name. If he is a faulty and recreant coward, the same token allows him to be properly blamed and reproved. The heraldic emblem is also given to the Knight so that he may be identified as a friend or enemy of chivalry. Hence every Knight ought to honor his token and see to it that it is never associated with blame."

--Adams, Robert, translator. William Caxton's 'The Book of the Order of Chivalry' (in late Middle English) as translated from a French version of Ramon Lull's 'Le Libre del Orde de Cauayleria'. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston University Press, 1991. 75. Print.

Lady Charlotte

Lady Charlotte · Post by **Lady Charlotte** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:36 pm

Hello, Cuan,

I agree with the views expressed in your more recent post, above, and appreciate your willingness to stand publicly for them. I would like to clarify one thing, though, as it pertains to this:

Cuan wrote:The SCA is not liable for damages suffered by artisans or authors resulting from Mr. Price's alleged contractual breaches. Nor does the SCA control who merchants at Pennsic (unless that person is otherwise excluded from the SCA).

You are undoubtedly more familiar than I am with the degree of control that the SCA exercises over the merchants at Gulf Wars and Pennsic, and the extent of the indirect financial benefit that the SCA receives from their sales, so it may be that the legal risk attendant on sales at those events by Revival Enterprises/Chivalry Bookshelf would not be the SCA's so much as it would be that of the respective sponsoring Kingdoms.

Unlike ordinary merchandise, under our intellectual property laws, a hosting party that has actual or constructive knowledge that a vendor is selling merchandise that infringes the copyright, patent and/or trademarks of third parties may be deemed to be engaging in vicarious or contributory infringement, which occurs "where one person knowingly contributes to the infringing conduct of another" by, for example, permitting the sale of infringing items on premises the host controls and deriving a direct or indirect financial benefit from such items' sale.

The operator of a swap meet, for example, has been held liable in such circumstances where the operator knew or should have known that vendors at the swap meet were selling counterfeit recordings that infringed the copyright and trademark of the plaintiff. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996)

According to an earlier post on this thread by Mr. Mele, whose company is Agilitas TV's new U.S. distributor, the copies of their DVDs being offered for sale by Revival Enterprises/Chivalry Bookshelf are wholly unauthorized, which would likely constitute sufficient notice to the operators of Gulf Wars and Pennsic (should they become actually or constructively aware of his statement through any officers or employees) to require due inquiry of Agilitas TV, at minimum.

Lady Charlotte

Baron Eirik · Post by **Baron Eirik** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:43 pm

Greg Mele wrote:Please note we hereby deny you any rights, assignations or access to our intellectual property, and will post that affect on all public forums. Should you sell any of our property at the upcoming SCA's "Gulf Wars" event, we will consider this be the sale and distribution of stolen goods and we will contact the authorities immediately. You should be aware that I am forwarding this and prior correspondence and the link to the Armour Archive discussion thread to the Gulf Wars event coordinator ("autocrat") and merchant liaison, so that they are aware that you have lost any legal title to our property.

I would suggest that you also contact Cindy Cooper, the merchant coordinator for Pennsic. Pennsic Merchant registration is going on currently.

Louis de Leon · Post by **Louis de Leon** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:57 pm

Baron Eirik wrote:
Greg Mele wrote:Please note we hereby deny you any rights, assignations or access to our intellectual property, and will post that affect on all public forums. Should you sell any of our property at the upcoming SCA's "Gulf Wars" event, we will consider this be the sale and distribution of stolen goods and we will contact the authorities immediately. You should be aware that I am forwarding this and prior correspondence and the link to the Armour Archive discussion thread to the Gulf Wars event coordinator ("autocrat") and merchant liaison, so that they are aware that you have lost any legal title to our property.

I would suggest that you also contact Cindy Cooper, the merchant coordinator for Pennsic. Pennsic Merchant registration is going on currently.

I've contacted the previous SCA merchant liaison to Cindy Cooper. I'm trying to figure out who the current SCA liaison is. Once she gets back to me I'll post contact information here.

Baron Eirik · Post by **Baron Eirik** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:06 pm

Cindy IS the merchant liaison.

Cindy Cooper
Merchant Office
111 Currie Road
Slippery Rock, PA 16057

merchantoffice@cooperslake.com

Louis de Leon · Post by **Louis de Leon** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:20 pm

Baron Eirik wrote:Cindy IS the merchant liaison.

Cindy Cooper
Merchant Office
111 Currie Road
Slippery Rock, PA 16057

merchantoffice@cooperslake.com

Yes, that's correct. But she also has an SCA person that she delegates stuff to. Amy (Olwyn) was the last one - I used to camp beside her. So I've got a message out to her on Facebook asking her who her replacement is so we can track down the current SCA liaison. Cindy is a good person to talk to, and I think the SCA liaison would also be someone to get in the loop.

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:37 pm

Interesting. At this point if I were to see him merchanting at an event I attended I would say something about it. To the appropriate people. Something would be done about it.

That's as much as I can assure anyone.

Best of luck to all involved.

welder · Post by **welder** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:41 pm

I do not know Brian Price, but I do know a few of the folks who've been fleeced by him. As an outsider, I'm unfamiliar with the internal politics and divisions of the SCA, but I do have some notion of what the Chivalry says it aspires to. Nor do I distinguish between knights in California or Texas; they're all the same from my distance. This thread has presented a huge pile of testimony/confession/evidence of clear, repeated and unrepentant anti-chivalric behavior from an SCA Knight. So I'm surprised to hear this from various SCA notables, many (most?) KSCA:

Meow meow no evidence meow meow can't do anything meow meow not my problem meow meow let someone else handle it meow meow meow.

The SCA has taken it upon itself to create knights and charge them to uphold honorable behavior. If you think about it this is pretty damned audacious, and comes with a heavy obligation to demonstrate that it has the moral authority to do so. How the SCA Chivalry handles this matter will help determine if I--and many, many outside observers--continue to see them as men and women aspiring to a higher ideal, or as a bunch of poseurs who are more interested in looking knightly than being knightly.

I don't care what the BoD does. As far as I know, being a scoundrel is not incompatible with general SCA membership. Maybe I'm wrong, there. Meh. But if Brian is still KSCA in six months, it will be a stain on the character of SCA Chivalry and a tacit rejection of the values for which it says it stands.

Now, knights, why would you care what I think? No particular reason. But I'm far from the only one reading this thread, and the next time you go looking for new members, you might find that the very people you are most interested in recruiting are the ones who cared when they read this.

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:55 pm

welder wrote:Now, knights, why would you care what I think? No particular reason. But I'm far from the only one reading this thread, and the next time you go looking for new members, you might find that the very people you are most interested in recruiting are the ones who cared when they read this.

Views: 53800

That's a lot of people. And I'm thinking they aren't coming just to read witty sockpuppet reparte'.

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:09 pm

Again. A peer long before the reported scandalous behavior.

Rest assured that we, the chivalry, are aware and able. His end is upon him. He is also aware.

The chivalry are famous for only saying publicly what needs to be said in matters such as these. Don't fret at the idea that we will not all step forward and tell you what you want to hear. That is not necessary.

We don't stand for a cause for your appeasement.

Post by JT » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:30 pm

Jeff J wrote:Views: 53800

That's a lot of people.

That's a lot of views. One person could generate that many. Now, I'm sure that there's more than one person looking at this (the multiple posters kind of requires it) but do not confuse the number of views with the number of view-ers.

Signo · Post by **Signo** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:36 am

As it appear that the matter has reached the status of lawsuit I will recommend do all people I know in Italy to avoid to make business with mr.Price.

Greg Mele · Post by **Greg Mele** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:21 am

Cara Signo,

Signo wrote:As it appear that the matter has reached the status of lawsuit I will recommend do all people I know in Italy to avoid to make business with mr.Price.

Grazie a mille, Signore.

And to all whom have sent me emails of support since my last post. Thank you. This was not the path we wished to take, but it is the path before us.

To Dukes Avery and Cuan,

Gentlemen, I will call you attention back to the post Lady Charlotte made quoting Raymond Lull and will say that you have displayed your colors and your quality for all to see. Thank you for standing by men you do not know.

And speaking of Lull, Avery, since I believe I understand you and since it has been a long time since I've had to blazon this correctly, I'll let a picture speak for me.

Best wishes,

Gregory

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:14 am

Good Morning Lady Charlotte and Duke Cuan,

I would rather watch the two of you debate law that watch the best crown touranment finals in the known world. You two would have an epic debate.

Both of you have minds I admire a lot.

With awe,

-Aaron

Morgan · Post by **Morgan** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:29 am

This is a truly offensive post and indicates that you have not read for content most of the posts nor followed the arch of this story.

welder wrote:Meow meow no evidence meow meow can't do anything meow meow not my problem meow meow let someone else handle it meow meow meow.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:38 am

Morgan,

It wasn't far off what I thought early on.

It seemed that the KSCAs were waiting for a ten year legal battle to be finished until action would be taken. But what I thought I saw was not what I saw and just seemed to be what I saw.

As Count Johnathan hinted to, things are happening. I think the KSCAs and other "powers that be" just doesn't want us to watch sausage being made, merely sausage being served (with a good ale, etc...). The behind-the-scenes stuff might not be great to see. For example some threads I've read here. It's not always great watching sausage being made.

With respect,

-Aaron

Zubeydah · Post by **Zubeydah** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:00 am

This morning, I have posted the following to my kingdom list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zubeydah Jamilla al-Badawiyyah <zubeydah>
Date: Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:04 AM
Subject: Shopping at Gulf War
To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra>

Good morning, Ansteorra!

Many folks are packing/planning/heading towards Gulf Warm.
Many folks are planning on shopping there.

In the interest of 'Let the Buyer Be Educated", I wanted to make sure folks were aware of this thread on the Armour Archive:
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... p?t=129990

If the link does not work, please browse to http://www.armourarchive.org/ and select Discussion Forums. Select Medieval Combat and Weapons. The thread is, " "The Sword in Two Hands by Brian Price" review wanted."

-Zubeydah

Aerimus13 · Post by **Aerimus13** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:18 am

Aaron wrote:Morgan,

It wasn't far off what I thought early on. It seemed that the KSCAs were waiting for a ten year legal battle to be finished until action would be taken. But what I thought I saw was not what I saw and just seemed to be what I saw.

As Count Johnathan hinted to, things are happening. I think the KSCAs and other "powers that be" just doesn't want us to watch sausage being made, merely sausage being served (with a good ale, etc...). The behind-the-scenes stuff might not be great to see. For example some threads I've read here. It's not always great watching sausage being made.

With respect,

-Aaron

And why did you lack the confidence in the KSCA to police one of their own? Could it be that the past is a good indicator of the future? I am glad the KSCA are taking action but to do it behind closed doors lacks the transparency that is needed. It continues the image that the nobility donâ€™t feel they are answerable to anybody outside of their own little group. This lack of transparency is what got this big lawsuit that caused the hike in membership fees. I am not asking they give out every little detail but to publicly in some way, shape, or form to give updates and a thorough account at the end of the investigation.

Rey · Post by **Rey** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:43 am

Nice, Wife is a Gold Star award member, have 2 girls that are girl Scouts.. Come to find out if you want to participate or help you have to be a girl scout so my wife signed me up (Yea I'm a Girl Scout / Cookie Pimp)

Rey

Lady Charlotte wrote:Hello, Louis,
Louis de Leon wrote:Just FYI, the Girl Scouts totally kick our ass.

In spades: pathetic, isn't it?

Lady Charlotte, former 1st Class Girl Scout and Daisy Scout/Brownie Scout/Junior Scout/Senior Girl Scout leader for over a decade...

Chris Gilman · Post by **Chris Gilman** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:43 am

With all this criticism of the SCA knights not taking action sooner and not “controlling their own”.
And as the knight who stood up 20 years ago in the belted circle that was considering Brian for Knighthood, and said, "If you consider me a knight, Brian, should be a Knight."
I offer up my belt.

Mikhail_Voronov · Post by **Mikhail_Voronov** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:49 am

Chris Gilman wrote:With all this criticism of the SCA knights not taking action sooner and not “controlling their own”.
And as the knight who stood up 20 years ago in the belted circle that was considering Brian for Knighthood, and said, "If you consider me a knight, Brian, should be a Knight."
I offer up my belt.

Just because he became a douchebag does not mean that your initial statement was incorrect. What he chose to do with his life after your statement is his fault not yours. You have clearly stated that you in fact have warned others of him when you found it right to do so.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:50 am

Chris Gilman wrote:With all this criticism of the SCA knights not taking action sooner and not “controlling their own”.
And as the knight who stood up 20 years ago in the belted circle that was considering Brian for Knighthood, and said, "If you consider me a knight, Brian, should be a Knight."
I offer up my belt.

Keep the belt.

There is no need to offer it, as far as I'm concerned. You are a knight, belt or not. You cannot disrobe and become anything less than a knight. You are someone I admire.

Keep the belt.

Please keep your belt, as it holds up your pants because without your belt you are still a knight, if only a knight with his hosen around his ankles. And that is something I don't want to see. You've done your part to bring this to it's end. You've fought the good fight for 20 years.

Keep the belt.

Maeryk · Post by **Maeryk** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:58 am

Aerimus13 wrote:
Aaron wrote:Morgan,

It wasn't far off what I thought early on. It seemed that the KSCAs were waiting for a ten year legal battle to be finished until action would be taken. But what I thought I saw was not what I saw and just seemed to be what I saw.

As Count Johnathan hinted to, things are happening. I think the KSCAs and other "powers that be" just doesn't want us to watch sausage being made, merely sausage being served (with a good ale, etc...). The behind-the-scenes stuff might not be great to see. For example some threads I've read here. It's not always great watching sausage being made.

With respect,

-Aaron

And why did you lack the confidence in the KSCA to police one of their own? Could it be that the past is a good indicator of the future? I am glad the KSCA are taking action but to do it behind closed doors lacks the transparency that is needed. It continues the image that the nobility donâ€™t feel they are answerable to anybody outside of their own little group. This lack of transparency is what got this big lawsuit that caused the hike in membership fees. I am not asking they give out every little detail but to publicly in some way, shape, or form to give updates and a thorough account at the end of the investigation.

You are talking out your ass now. If you don't actually know the details of the lawsuit, and what led to it, then please don't speak about it. All you do is spread rumor and disinformation.

Morgan · Post by **Morgan** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:00 am

Aaron wrote:Morgan,

It wasn't far off what I thought early on. It seemed that the KSCAs were waiting for a ten year legal battle to be finished until action would be taken. But what I thought I saw was not what I saw and just seemed to be what I saw.

With respect,

-Aaron

Also with respect..... I'm unfamiliar with ANY "10 year legal battle." To me, this looks like a lot of years of complaints that stuff was wrong, and only recently have the aggrieved parties really started to START the legal process. Heck, look at one of Greg's most recent posts:

"Since you have chosen to let the deadline to surrender our rights and property lapse, please note that, our offer is hereby rescinded. We will nowpursue any and all civil and criminal avenues that are open to us. "

Is there a list of books that are in question and items that are suspect in all of this?

Now that this legal action has theoretically begun, now that the aggrieved parties seem to be saying more than, "He screwed me. Someone should do something about it" I'm more than willing to stand with Cuan. (Actually, I'd follow that man into hell, he's so inspiring) I won't however apologize for having philosophical notions that spring from Magna Carta and furthered by the founding fathers of the United States... A man deserves his day in court before having his rights stripped, and he deserves to face his accusers. These things now seem to be coming.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:01 am

Aerimus13 wrote:And why did you lack the confidence in the KSCA to police one of their own?

My faith in the SCA knight has never been on really sound footing. I wouldn't gauge the SCA knighthood ethics by my view of them.

Some I've met have been wonderful. In fact I am happy to call most of them knights, in the best of terms in regards to knighthood.

But I think they do need to police their own, publish a code of ethics that applies to both in the SCA and out of the SCA and have a much tighter control.

If a knight is kicked out of the Order due to something that he or she did not do, the Order can offer an apology and ask the knight to return. Simple as that. Administrative leave if you will, like police forces and the military do sometimes.

If a knight is kicked out of the Order due to something that he or she did do, they can walk the long walk to redemption and eventually rise again to join the Order and gain the respect of those they lead and serve.

IMO it should not be just prowess. From the website of a knight (and comedian) I admire a lot:

http://chivalrytoday.com/knightly-virtues/

Courage
More than bravado or bluster, todayâ€™s knight in shining armor must have the courage of the heart necessary to undertake tasks which are difficult, tedious or unglamorous, and to graciously accept the sacrifices involved.

Justice
A knight in shining armor holds him- or herself to the [u]highest standard of behavior, and knows that â€œfudgingâ€

Aerimus13 · Post by **Aerimus13** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:16 am

Maeryk wrote:
Aerimus13 wrote:
Aaron wrote:Morgan,

It wasn't far off what I thought early on. It seemed that the KSCAs were waiting for a ten year legal battle to be finished until action would be taken. But what I thought I saw was not what I saw and just seemed to be what I saw.

As Count Johnathan hinted to, things are happening. I think the KSCAs and other "powers that be" just doesn't want us to watch sausage being made, merely sausage being served (with a good ale, etc...). The behind-the-scenes stuff might not be great to see. For example some threads I've read here. It's not always great watching sausage being made.

With respect,

-Aaron

And why did you lack the confidence in the KSCA to police one of their own? Could it be that the past is a good indicator of the future? I am glad the KSCA are taking action but to do it behind closed doors lacks the transparency that is needed. It continues the image that the nobility donâ€™t feel they are answerable to anybody outside of their own little group. This lack of transparency is what got this big lawsuit that caused the hike in membership fees. I am not asking they give out every little detail but to publicly in some way, shape, or form to give updates and a thorough account at the end of the investigation.

You are talking out your ass now. If you don't actually know the details of the lawsuit, and what led to it, then please don't speak about it. All you do is spread rumor and disinformation.

Maybe you need to go back and look as Astroth's post. Oh and BTW You can kiss my ass while I am talking out of it.

St. George · Post by **St. George** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:20 am

Chris Gilman wrote:With all this criticism of the SCA knights not taking action sooner and not “controlling their own”.
And as the knight who stood up 20 years ago in the belted circle that was considering Brian for Knighthood, and said, "If you consider me a knight, Brian, should be a Knight."
I offer up my belt.

Anyone who goes to collect that belt needs to come through me to get it.

Keep your belt Sir Gaston, you are and always have been a Knight.

Sir Alaric, Duke Sartiano

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:20 am

Morgan wrote:Also with respect..... I'm unfamiliar with ANY "10 year legal battle." To me, this looks like a lot of years of complaints that stuff was wrong, and only recently have the aggrieved parties really started to START the legal process.

True sir. I was in the wrong.

But...(yeah, any statement that starts with "but" ends badly)...is a legal battle required for action to be taken?

Brian Price is very charismatic and I doubt I would have done much, if anything if I were a KSCA. It would be like running full tilt into a brick wall. It didn't do anything to the brick wall but it certainly made your friends laugh as you recover.

One KSCA has spent many years occasionally running into that brick wall. That would be Chris Gillman here on the Archive. And I bet it hurt. But the wall looks like it's coming down.