[Archers] Archers Digest, Vol 101, Issue 16

[Charles Sprouse]

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-0003.htm>