[MR] Re: [Directors] Anti-Bounceback

[Jonathan Blackbow]

[interspersed]
----- Original Message -----
From: <Velsthe1 at aol.com>
To: <blackbow at carolina.rr.com>; <atlantia at atlantia.sca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [MR] Re: [Directors] Anti-Bounceback


>
> >I think you (the BOD), by ratifying this decision,
> >have either killed or significantly reduced the
> >chances of a lot of archers attending Pennsic.
>
> It seems you may be overstating this, as it appears more (On a Kingdom
Level) Combat Archers use Golf Tubes.
>

[I don't know any archers in Atlantia that use GCTs on a regular basis any
more.  Certainly not in crossbows.  Lord knows if anybody were going to keep
using them, it'd be me, since I came up with the Thumper head a few years
ago.  I know that there are some out there that are using them still, but I
didn't see any at Gulf Wars.  Haven't for a couple of years.  I stand by my
original statement.]


> >Crossbows in particular will be affected (you can't
> >put an ABD under the crossbow as it currently stands)
>
> Not nessesarily. There have been several designs made with Crossbows in
mind. See:http://fellwalker.com/SCA/missile/ABD/index2.html
> http://fellwalker.com/crossbow
> They manufacture and sell crossbows, bolts, and SCA Approved ABD's for
crossbow bolts. Design plans are visible on the site for free download.
There are others, it is just a matter of looking.
>

[If you look at the design for the ABD you'll see that it basically consists
of making the nock end as big around as the head end, and that won't fit in
a current crossbow the way it's designed.  I stand by my original statement;
you can't put this thing on a crossbow of the current extant design.]


> >I am of the opinion that not enough thought was given
> >to the implementation end of this rule, and I
> >sincerely hope that the BOD reevaluates its position
> >on this before archers begin quitting the SCA in
> >droves.
>
> I seem to recall hearing of similar comments when hardwood spearshafts
were first banned.
>

[They found a way around that problem that was suitable to everyone
concerned, it would seem.  This doesn't seem suitable to everyone concerned.
I stand by my original statement.]


> >My suggestion?  Let those people who are concerned
> >with protecting their eyes do so, and let the rest of
> >us get on with life.
>
> It is your eyes the Marshallate is trying to protect.
>

[No; it's the SCA the marshallate is trying to protect.  If the marshallate
were really and truly trying to protect my eyes, they'd have made safety
goggles mandatory a LOOONG time ago.]

> >I'm surprised that nobody has suggested swimming
> >goggles under the helmet.  They're small, and you can
> >drill holes in them to let out the condensation.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Jonathan Blackbow
>
> It has been suggested, and so has it been suggested of holes to alleviate
condensation. Tests of this have found that they continue to fog regardless.

[I'd also try stripping the rubber edging off the side that sits next to the
skin.]

There is also the issue of maintaining the Period Look. Granted, this is of
lesser importance than safety when it comes to combat but it is still a
sticking point.
>

[I hadn't seen it anywhere; I retract my surprise and my suggestion.  I
certainly wasn't planning on wearing them; I'm fine with things the way they
are.]


> Many seem to be forgetting though, this isn't a debate over "What do we do
about this?". This is commentary of what has already been set as policy by
the Society Earl Marshall.
>

[Not to me.  The letter I received from Mr. Larsen clearly indicated that
the rule would be reviewed in October.  To me, this is about fussing about
it loudly enough and firmly enough for the BOD to hear, and realize that the
fix they have directed does not suit the mass majority of those wishing to
partake in CA.  Nor, for that matter, does it seem to suit many of those who
don't wish to.]

>
>
> Vels, Called Landstrykkr

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow