Repercussion

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 7:36 am

Somewhere in the dark edges between thugdom and chivalry, a young fighter has heard King Henry cry out, "Who will rid me of these troublesome archers?" In a week or two, when an arrow strikes his helm on the field, those words will echo through his mind. He will remember all the things his heroes said.

I wonder what he'll do then.

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 7:44 am

First, he'll be glad it hit him in the helm, so he doesn't have to take the shot.

Second, he'll thank the stars that melees are still places where he can get bonked in the head with arrows!

Steve

------------------
Forth Armoury
The Riveted Maille Website!

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 7:52 am

Great...then we'll have St. [somebody] the Archer, with their own holy site, pilgramage, medallions, bloody t-shirt for pete's sake...all for getting gacked by a heavy. Knowing how these things usually work out, they'll be the patron saint of stick-thugs

- Kyle

[This message has been edited by Kyle (edited 03-01-2002).]

Ulrich · Post by **Ulrich** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:23 am

Simply put, When your King yells out "Who will rid me of these troublesome archers?" you grab a few volunteers and tell him that you will. Then proceed to Run (since we can't ride) down the archers, when you catch them, (assuming their heavy archers) you whack them, if they Yield before you can whack them, you let them go off the field (as you would anyone else). (if they're light archers you tell them there dead, if they refuse to die, you snatch them up and haul them to the nearest marshal)

in a few weeks at another event when you get bonked in the head with an arrow...you do the same thing.

It's that simple, I've stated I dont like CA, I stand by that. HOWEVER, its here its not gonna go anywhere, I'll deal with it, and I'll deal with Combat archers just like ANYONE else on the field. (assuming there heavy) and once again I'll state, if you can't be hit, (the one thing thats universal in this game we play we hit each other with sticks) you shouldnt be on the field. if you can be hit, but choose to yield its your choice...everything in the end is a choice.

Ulrich

(those who hang from crosses eventually get splinters in their butts.)

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:52 am

And those who wear white belts find themselves taken far more literally than they ever intended.

-30-

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 10:03 am

If the young fighter listens to his heroes, he will fight according to the rules and the archer will have no complaints. If he does not, he should receive the same sanctions that he would receive for breaking any of the other rules.

Are some kings or fighters jerks? Sure. Do they advocate breaking the rules of the lists and hurting archers? I am certainly not aware of any.

If you insist on posting topics that paint kings, knights and fighters as unethical, cheating, mean, nasty complete idiots, Beckett murdering "thugs" and selfish egomaniacs, you are not helping to solve the problem. You are creating the problem.

Nobody here is advocating breaking the rules of the list. Nobody here is advocating violation of the rules of chivalry. Nobody here is out to get you.

Many of us do want Combat Archery reformed or eliminated. So your reaction is to savagely attack us? We have not done that to you. Where our humour or period persona reactions have unwittingly upset you, we have generally offered explanations and apologies.

T-Bob politely asked me not to go on about this in a post yesterday, so I decided to comply and let it go, despite the fact that you chose to post on the topic again.

So instead of it being over, I wake up to yet another post from you which attacks the monarchy, the chivalry and the fighter population. It implies that the kings and heroes of the battlefield will be inspiring young fighters to improper acts tantamount to murdering priests.

I would have thought it funny had you and T-Bob not made it perfectly clear that you are both very serious about this and that you Hushgirl, are upset about it.

If you want to let it go, fine. I have no wish to upset you. But if you insist on continuing to start new threads which insult those who disagree with your point of view and compare it to murdering churchmen and thuggery, well, now I am simply amazed and apalled.

Why can't you discuss this in a reasonable manner? And if you can't and you and T-Bob want us to let it go, why do you continue to post inflammatory, accusatory and antagonistic threads?

Come on. We are trying to get along, discuss authenticity, re-enactment and combat. Why is this so hard for you to do without making it personal and nasty?

I echo T-Bob's call to let it go. It is wise advice you should heed.

-Richard

[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 03-01-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 03-01-2002).]

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 10:19 am

Yeah, I knew you'd miss the point.

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 10:40 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hushgirl:
Somewhere in the dark edges between thugdom and chivalry, a young fighter has heard King Henry cry out, "Who will rid me of these troublesome archers?" In a week or two, when an arrow strikes his helm on the field, those words will echo through his mind. He will remember all the things his heroes said.

I wonder what he'll do then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple, I'll shoot them with my crossbow. The archers on my side are seldom troublesome, it's the archers on the other side...

Since you don't think your message got across, speak in plain English, and listen to the answer.

Siggy · Post by **Siggy** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 10:44 am

Hushgirl,

If I may then respectfully ask, what is your point? All throughout the combat archery threads I have seen you assume that the worst would happen to you, and that it would be a knight, squire, King, or Prince that would do it to you.

I have never seen an instance of an archer being hit on the ground, or after yielding. I have seen archers who ran, or refused to yield hit, but no harder than any other fighter on the field. I will admit that my war experience is somewhat limited, but personal honor is the name of our game, and if you play by the rules, so will the people fighting you. If someone does hit too hard, yell "Good, M'lord (or lady), but a bit excessive" and die. Or just die and talk with them about it after the battle.

Forgive me for assuming a man to be a gentleman until he proves otherwise.

------------------
Siggy
If one studies to zealously, one easily loses his pants.
--A. Einstein

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 11:07 am

Why the sarcasm? What is your point?

Can't you just say what you mean or do you really enjoy conflict for conflicts sake? We reach out to you to try to understand and you still make comments like that.

This is why other people give up and don't bother trying to discuss things with you rationally. You don't meet them half way when they try to understand you.

Richard

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 11:33 am

Try this for a point, then:

Henry certainly didn't mean for Beckett to get killed like that, but eager followers acted on what they thought he wanted. A person of rank in the SCA may mean "fair action according to the rules", but an overeager follower may misinterpret and overreact. Put simply, belts and hats cannot afford personal rants.

While the CA firestorm inspired this thought, it has nothing to do with me, you, or combat archery. It was a simple observation on human nature.

Your interpretation, however, is out of my control.

pdepamiers · Post by **pdepamiers** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:09 pm

Hushgirl,

You state that Richard's interpretation of your comments is beyond your control. Yet you slight him for the possible interpretation of his comments by others.

People need to be held accountable for their own actions. If some one chooses to take action against CA then they should suffer the consequences. If you have specific examples than bring it to the attention of the Knights Marshall.

At one point you have commented that some fighters are trying to take away your right to participate and to have fun by using CA. Yet, you fail to recognize that there are people who feel that CA is not fun and takes away from the game they would like to play. You can not have it both ways, in the end you come off being painted with the same brush that you choose to paint others with. The brush says, "this is the way I think it should be done and other opinions are wrong."

------------------
Phillipe de Pamiers
Midrealm

[This message has been edited by pdepamiers (edited 03-01-2002).]

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:33 pm

Again, my comment had nothing--nothing--to do with combat archery. It was about leadership and personal rants. I am, after all, capable of moving on to a new thought now and again.

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:38 pm

Quote: "Try this for a point, then:
Henry certainly didn't mean for Beckett to get killed like that, but eager followers acted on what they thought he wanted. A person of rank in the SCA may mean "fair action according to the rules", but an overeager follower may misinterpret and overreact. Put simply, belts and hats cannot afford personal rants.'

Oh. That makes a lot more sense. Thank you for the clarification. However, we are playing at re-creating tournament and melee and some people are trying to play at recreating war. In all three, there are cries in persona to defeat the enemy, in war to kill the enemy, various rallying cries and appropriate period language, etc. If you are really worried about somebody acting in the real world in a violent/incorrect manner based on "Would someone rid me of these troublesome archers", I think you should be more concerned about an impassioned pre-battle "pep talk" ala Henry the Vth which is then followed up by the normal commanders directions to "kill X group of people". You are worried about innuendo causing people to violate the rules. This is a game. This is a very serious game. I think your concerns are a tempest in a teapot, but you have every right to be concerned if you so choose. Also, I am entitled to rant as much as anyone else is, though I agree the rant should be responsible one. I am not advocating the slaughter of innocents or the violation of rules. I am in fact, trying to prevent the same while working against a current problem that I feel makes the game less special and the rules illogical. If I remember correctly, you were one of the people defending Duke/Sir Dag for his actions at the infamous Pennsic war where one of the battles ended up being cancelled. Somebody, perhaps you made the comments to the effect of "It was only Dag, who listens to his trash talk/takes him seriously, etc.". So apparently you want to hold the belts and kings responsible only when they don't agree with your position? I would agree that may be an unfair interpretation but it seems to be what you are saying.

Quote: "While the CA firestorm inspired this thought, it has nothing to do with me, you, or combat archery. It was a simple observation on human nature."

OK. But I hope you understand that based on the prior threads and T-Bob's request that I let it go, why I could not understand why you appear to be continuing it and attacking people the way you orignally phrased this.

Quote: "Your interpretation, however, is out of my control."

Well sure. But based on your choice of words and the context of the CA firestorm as you put it and the fact that this is obviously related to all of that; my interpretation was an extremely reasonable one. Thank you for explaining what you meant more clearly. I am sorry that I misunderstood you.

I do not intend to post more on this subject as it relates to you. I'll let it go. Unless of course you choose to post more on it after all

Truce. I hope.

-Richard

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:55 pm

But mostly it seems as if you like to rant against the leadership......

That aside, WHO ELSE is better suited to "rant" against CA, it's use by "nobility", and chivalric combat than the chiv?

That's like saying, you're the professor at a university, because you hold that title, you'd better not take any unpopular point of view even though the knowledge that you hold proves your point.......

Hey, you DON'T have to like that, but think about it for a bit.

What do you want, a bunch of "yes-men" in white belts?
It'll never happen Hush.

VvS

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 1:07 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vermin:


That aside, WHO ELSE is better suited to "rant" against CA, it's use by "nobility", and chivalric combat than the chiv?

VvS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The chivalry, back when I still believed in the Dream, used a measure of prudence in it's opinions as a group and urged reservation in it's membership. A knight did not criticize the throne or the rules in public. He waited until he was talking to someone who could do something about it. This reticence doubled for counts and dukes. They were always aware, those nobles, that their most casual comment could magnify. At the very least, they could hinder someone else's enthusiasm. At worst, they could cripple someone's (SCA) career and possible lose them to the Society.

Ah, well. I grow old and nostalgic.

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 1:25 pm

Gee, Hush, I know the same knights you are referring to, and in pretty much the same time. I do remember being awed, but I do not recall them being shy with their opinions -- ever *grin*!!!

Thanks for helping me to remember... -c-

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 1:43 pm

IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PEERS to rant and rave and foam at the mouth when they see something wrong.
Now some of them could talk the wings off an angel and get the job done.
Others would try to talk the talk but appear to be using a .38 to pull the wings off an angel.

Plus this is a forum for discussion. Pro con good bad and just plain silly. (That's generally me silly).

Now peers bad mouthing kings are a totally different kettle of fish. I have not see that on the subjects covering combat archery.

i wish all our kings/princes, the big person, in charge COULD give a good speech worthy of Branagen and Henry 5. It would add to the flavor of the event.

If the king wanted the archers rid of, in a good way I do it. In a bad way. Whoa squire don't play that game.

knights are only taken seriously until as you have put in have real life and goober knight drop into your dream and not be a KNIGHTLY Knight. After that Ned Newby will take what Sir Goober Knight with a grain of salt and NOT follow orders to rid him of troublesome archers.

Sorry had to add some commas and vowels

[This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-01-2002).]

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 2:04 pm

Jasper--Type slower. I'm old, I can't read that fast.

Object when they see something wrong, yes--but not in public and not to a bunch of nobodies who can't fix it. That's undignified, counterproductive and can have all sorts of unintended side effects. What if Sir A said, with some heat, that no black man ever acheived knighthood in period and thus none ever should in the SCA? And even if example were cited, he insisted? Sides would be chosen, bitterness and even vandalism could ensue.

What if Count B said that the Golden Horde was never welcomed into any Western court and therefor should not be allowed into the SCA?

Oh. We did that, didn't we?

AElfraed Hawkmoon · Post by **AElfraed Hawkmoon** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:04 pm

Not too long ago I noted a KSCA whom I admire greatly saying 'One of my favorite things is the way archers squeal when I gack them'. Several people who heard this 'assumed' that he meant to go out of his way to hurt archers with malice aforethought. And I heard a few people state that if this was good enough for Sir ----, then they would plan to gack archers to hear squeals also.

Sir ---- NEVER meant to imply that anybody should set out to hurt archers.

Problems with unintended consequences.

AElf

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:17 pm

Thank, Aelfred. My point.

pdepamiers · Post by **pdepamiers** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:18 pm

AElf,

Why not put the blame on the people listening? The devil made me do it, is not a good way to go through life. In the end people need to take responsiblity for their own actions.

------------------
Phillipe de Pamiers
Midrealm

Shamey · Post by **Shamey** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:21 pm

But even if we are careful about what/to whom something is said, there is always a chance for misinterpretation.

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:21 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hushgirl:
What if Sir A said, with some heat, that no black man ever acheived knighthood in period and thus none ever should in the SCA? And even if example were cited, he insisted?

What if Count B said that the Golden Horde was never welcomed into any Western court and therefor should not be allowed into the SCA?

Oh. We did that, didn't we?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd just say "Saint Maurice". The best comment I've heard on the second is "I'm not an accessory to your garb". The third? Not I.

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:24 pm

But at least you've done your best. There's a huge difference between, "I don't like hot dogs" and "Hot dogs are EVIL! They should all be DESTROYED! And anybody who eats them should DIE!"

Suppose Sir---- had merely said, "I don't like archers", instead of making hitting them sound like fun and reducing them to squeaky, non-human targets?

AElfraed Hawkmoon · Post by **AElfraed Hawkmoon** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:40 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by pdepamiers:
AElf,

Why not put the blame on the people listening?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen bro...

The problem I see is that, while there will always be idiots, what can be done to not encourage idiocy. Better communication and better training? More rigourous certification and sanctions? The easiest is better role-modeling.

AElf

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:50 pm

Quite frankly this PC shit is getting way out of hand.
I have to deal with this on a daily basis at work, and it sickens me TO NO END, that people have to tippytoe their way through conversations so as not to "offend" people.

You think I want that crap in my hobby?

You know what?

"I" like the way archers squeak when I hit them.

I REALLY do.

I don't hit them (in the few instances that I have been ALLOWED to hit them.) any harder than any other target on the field.
But somehow, their squeaks are music to my ears.

Sweet, joyous, angelic, even.......

Somehow I think they think of my mutterings of "God@mn&d archers...." when they peg ME, as music too.

Maybe I should have phrased that all a little bit nicer, but I choose not to, on principle.

VvS

AElfraed Hawkmoon · Post by **AElfraed Hawkmoon** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 4:14 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vermin:

"I" like the way archers squeak when I hit them.

I REALLY do.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto, and I also like the way heavy weapon fighters moan when I give them a good pop. For that matter, I don't mind giving other fighters the pleasure of hearing me squeek when I get a good wrap across the cheeks.

I am however against the idea of hitting ANY fighter harder just because of prejudice.

Part of the problem with Sir --- saying he liked the way archers squealed when he gacked them, is that Sir --- talks about hitting other fighters, and 'gacking' rhinos. Therefore most people believed that 'gacking' means hitting harder.

Sir --- also mentioned that he gets a large charge out of seeing terror in the eyes of archers when they see him at full charge. But then he gets the same reaction out of most combatants.

AElf

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 4:35 pm

Hush girl you going over board and under estimating us members of the goober um peanut gallery.

If Sir A said "HOT DOGS are evil and not PERIOD! And All who eat hot dogs are weeniers and must be destroyed!" And he was wrong and you knew he was wrong because you wrote the 1,000 page book of "Armour HOT Dogs or the Wurst Years 1066 thru 1499" which document the meat of the problem.
Then he is a goober and should be verbally pasted in public. And you should let him have you Wurst!

If the all peanut gallery, follows him it is both his and the gallery fault.

IF however Sir Bryan states that "Hot dogs are evil and should not be allowed at feasts" and Sir Oscar Mayer states "They period they should be at feasts" And the documentation and our rules are wishy washy on the subject.
Then they are doing their duty to try to influence the populace ,that us, to the way they see to play the game.

Then it is up to us to say Sir Bryan or Sir Oscar is right. And write the BOD to change the rules to clarify this issue.

Furthermore, if you think both of them are wrong and can't cut the mustard. Then it is your duty to rise up and proclaim they are wrong and the correct way is yours.

Now the proof is in human nature. If you, or Sir Bryan, or Sir Oscar, can influence enuff people, regardless what type of hat they wear, that view point will be held correct. Historically wrong but correct.

Of course the battle field is not even due to Sirs have belt and gaining the first advantage of respectablity. However if both Sirs are full of baloney, then you view pt will start to take the field. It may seem to be an up hill battle with a covering of pea soup fog but it should prevail.

Now if your voice, etc, is like Gilbert Godfree (the parrot from Aladdin), then you postion is move farer back from the starting gate.

Aside. Gilbert godfree's voice just makes me what to squeeze his throat until his eyes drop out.

Aelf did you gently correct those goobers who had misunderstood your hero?

[This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-01-2002).]

Templar Bob/De Tyre · Post by **Templar Bob/De Tyre** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 4:45 pm

Jasper:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

(Templar Bob goes to the kitchen for a dishcloth to clean up the chocolate YooHoo(tm) he spewed over the monitor and keyboard.)

------------------
Robert Coleman, Jr.

The Noble Companie and Order of St. Maurice
Those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing for those who don't.

Remember: In Living History/Reinactment, Real Life is the Great Leveler of Man.

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 4:47 pm

Don't let him con you. It was Ovaltine. (Hits T-Bob with Silly Stick)

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:42 pm

I want some Yoo hoo and a hot dot, with mustard, maybe some peanuts on the side, mmmmmmmmm.....Otto

mordreth · Post by **mordreth** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 9:05 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hushgirl:
Object when they see something wrong, yes--.... What if Sir A said, with some heat, that no black man ever acheived knighthood in period and thus none ever should in the SCA? And even if example were cited, he insisted? Sides would be chosen, bitterness and even vandalism could ensue.
*******************************************
I would offer to hold his glasses, and hat while he, Diablu, and Koga Yoshitsune were chatting in the parking lot. I would also be scrupulous about calling an ambulance

Brodir · Post by **Brodir** » Sun Mar 03, 2002 3:25 am

Jasper, you are one funny dude. You must be a lot of fun in person, hope to meet you & buy a beer one day.

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:44 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mordreth:
[QUOTE]I would offer to hold his glasses, and hat while he, Diablu, and Koga Yoshitsune were chatting in the parking lot. I would also be scrupulous about calling an ambulance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tomeeki could marshal...