[Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 19

Wed Feb 15 07:35:48 PST 2012

I don't know but I think it would be very cool to be part of the Chiv. What is great about the SCA is there is something for everyone. What is so cool about archery (Extremely large community)  you can get what ever you want out of it. 

On Feb 15, 2012, at 10:25 AM, archers-request at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org wrote:

> Send Archers mailing list submissions to
> 	archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
> 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	archers-request at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	archers-owner at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Archers digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 18 (Holly Gibbons)
>   2. Re: Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16 (loreleielkins at aol.com)
>   3. Re: Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16 (Jamie Frailey)
>   4. Re: Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16 (Charles Sprouse)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:46:36 -0800 (PST)
> From: Holly Gibbons <holly0920 at yahoo.com>
> To: "archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org"
> 	<archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 18
> Message-ID:
> 	<1329273996.24901.YahooMailNeo at web111615.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Greetings.
> ?
> It is not true, as is being said in the heat of the moment, that peerages are denied to all but a few. Chivalry may hold tight to their own peerage, but the Laurelate and the Pelicanate are open to ALL. Many in all the sca disciplines are so rewarded with these types of awards - - just last week (at kasf) a rapier fighter was made a Laurel for his research on period rapier techniques and history, on paper as well as in practice.
> ?
> More peerages will not necessarily make for more recognition, but will undoubtedly dilute the token collection game further. I do not think the archers nor the rapier fighters are big enough groups to make them peerages, and more small, exclusive groups are not healthy for the sca. Each of these "fourth peerage" oddments, including siege and equestrian, have their own Orders already.
> ?
> Besides, I do not know any thrown weapons folks who want in on this peerage thing - - they are having way too much fun with their game. Ask around. They do not want anything to do with war points, they hate bureaucracy. Perhaps the archers could pay heed! Be careful what you ask for.
> Nuala
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20120214/822b851a/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:27:14 -0500 (EST)
> From: loreleielkins at aol.com
> To: janynfletcher at comcast.net, jamie at designbyfive.com,
> 	archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16
> Message-ID: <8CEB9EBE652A3DE-2B18-4292 at webmail-m144.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> I think that one of the issues was the the Chiv was so unitedly opposed to including archers included in a 4th peerage.  :-)  I guess we scare them.  But, draw your own conclusions.  The survey and results are posted at www.sca.org.  It is an interesting read.
> 
> 
> Lorelei
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher at comcast.net>
> To: loreleielkins <loreleielkins at aol.com>; jamie <jamie at designbyfive.com>; archers <archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
> Sent: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 8:45 pm
> Subject: RE: [Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16
> 
> 
> 
> Sent mine a few minutes ago. I had heard at Pennsic that the positive responses were less than 50% and maybe this is why they are asking for more support? This confuses me because I could not imagine any active and involved archers not supporting this??? Lorelei is right, now is the time to be heard. Take a minute and send your thoughts in.
> 
> YIS, Janyn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20120215/182af7ae/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:03:03 -0500
> From: Jamie Frailey <jamie at designbyfive.com>
> To: loreleielkins at aol.com
> Cc: archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16
> Message-ID: <DB2FB170-BA83-494B-992C-02EAA499F5BE at designbyfive.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> I think the problem with archers is that the Chiv does consider archery a chivalric weapons form. I think if you break it down one can see that might be true since there is no close engagement. But archers behavior and the investment in our discipline certainly is chivalric.
> 
> 
> On Feb 15, 2012, at 6:27 AM, loreleielkins at aol.com wrote:
> 
>> I think that one of the issues was the the Chiv was so unitedly opposed to including archers included in a 4th peerage.  :-)  I guess we scare them.  But, draw your own conclusions.  The survey and results are posted at www.sca.org.  It is an interesting read.
>> 
>> Lorelei
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher at comcast.net>
>> To: loreleielkins <loreleielkins at aol.com>; jamie <jamie at designbyfive.com>; archers <archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
>> Sent: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 8:45 pm
>> Subject: RE: [Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16
>> 
>> Sent mine a few minutes ago. I had heard at Pennsic that the positive responses were less than 50% and maybe this is why they are asking for more support? This confuses me because I could not imagine any active and involved archers not supporting this??? Lorelei is right, now is the time to be heard. Take a minute and send your thoughts in.
>> 
>> YIS, Janyn
>> 
>> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jamie Frailey
> jamie at designbyfive.com
> 
> c. 443.834.8141
> p. 443.615.7264
> 
> 225 East Redwood Street, 3rd Floor
> Baltimore, MD 21202
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20120215/00115fb9/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:24:41 -0800 (PST)
> From: Charles Sprouse <sprousecp at yahoo.com>
> To: "loreleielkins at aol.com" <loreleielkins at aol.com>,
> 	"janynfletcher at comcast.net" <janynfletcher at comcast.net>,
> 	"jamie at designbyfive.com" <jamie at designbyfive.com>,
> 	"archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org"
> 	<archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16
> Message-ID:
> 	<1329319481.44786.YahooMailNeo at web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> My problem with this concept is and always will be that if they are opposed to archers being members of the Chiv for whatever reasons, then fine, but why would they try to exclude us from our own seperate peerage since it won't affect their 'exclusive club' at all?? That just seems spiteful to me, but that's just a relative 'newbies' perspective in comparison.
> ?
> Karl von Konigsberg
> 
> From: "loreleielkins at aol.com" <loreleielkins at aol.com>
> To: janynfletcher at comcast.net; jamie at designbyfive.com; archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16
> 
> 
> I think that one of the issues was the the Chiv was so unitedly opposed to including archers included in a 4th peerage. ?:-) ?I guess we scare them. ?But, draw your own conclusions. ?The survey and results are posted at www.sca.org. ?It is an interesting read. 
> 
> Lorelei
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher at comcast.net>
> To: loreleielkins <loreleielkins at aol.com>; jamie <jamie at designbyfive.com>; archers <archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
> Sent: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 8:45 pm
> Subject: RE: [Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16
> 
> 
> Sent mine a few minutes ago. I had heard at Pennsic that the positive responses were less than 50% and maybe this is why they are asking for more support? This confuses me because I could not imagine any active and involved archers not supporting this??? Lorelei is right, now is the time to be heard. Take a minute and send your thoughts in.
> ?
> YIS, Janyn
> ?
> ?
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20120215/c649697f/attachment.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
> 
> 
> End of Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 19
> ****************************************

Regards,

Jamie Frailey
jamie at designbyfive.com

c. 443.834.8141
p. 443.615.7264

225 East Redwood Street, 3rd Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20120215/cae12d21/attachment-0002.htm>