[MR] Re: Queen's Arms

[Logan]

wow, anytime i post something............

anyway, my comments are interspersed and preceded by ********

-----Original Message-----
From: Duarte Negrin de los Angeles y Blanco
[mailto:cuban_rapier at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:37 AM
To: Merry Rose
Cc: Logan
Subject: Re: [MR] Re: Queen's Arms


On Saturday 30 March 2002 08:58 am, Logan wrote:
>  you
> saying "well it was bob that said it" does not provide verifiable fact,
> only hearsay.

Actually, no. If she is reporting something she herself heard, it isn't
hearsay. It is direct testimony. Now, if YOU say that she overheard it, THAT
would be hearsay.

********
it is hearsay if it cant be proven.  granted the courts view someones
accounting of a situation as testimony.  testimony is not fact by its very
nature.  it is one persons declaration of what they heard, saw, believe,
etc.  jeffery dahmers mothers said that her son was a good boy that wouldnt
hurt anyone i bet you misses hitler or misses oj would have said the same.
would you defend her/their testimony as fact?  facts are things that are
provable and that can be demonstrated to be truth time and time again.
testimony is not fact.


>  i dont think that its in your character to lie so i am
> willing to believe that you heard what you report.  but it is still not
> verifiable other than by your word and perhaps others.

It's called testimony, and it the most common form of verification. By
calling for verification "other than by your word and perhaps others
", you ARE calling them liars.  Fortunately, we know that wasn't your
intent.


********
calling for verification is simply that.  for example, you are pulled over
for speeding.  the cop asks for you license.  is he calling you a liar if
you say "i am bob smith".  nope, he is simply asking for some higher level
of evidence that you are indeed bob smith.  that does not mean he is calling
you a liar.  for you to claim that 'testimony' is a common form of
verification is questionable.  let me hand you a check from my account, made
payable to you and singed by me, and have you go to my bank to cash it.
when they ask you for your id you tell them not to call you a liar and
demand payment of the check.  if they cash the check and apologize i am
willing to rethink my comments.

> a woman being degraded by childish prattle taking a piece of heraldry and
> referring to it as "her most private body part" ( i assume somehow that
the
> "v" word is gaucherie) seems a bit silly.  are we suggesting that the
> antics of juvenile idiots somehow dictates what the rest of us do?

Since the "antics of juvenile idiots" were actually the act of the King
during Curia, and he does indeed "dictate what the rest of us do", then yes,
I'd say that's an accurate summation.

********
the words of one person during one situation as interpreted by a set
audience is certainly not what we are talking about.  nobody is that
powerful.  your own argument is flawed since there have also been many of us
(past and current royalty) that have since discounted those words.  you must
acknowledge that if king A says the sky is blue, and you demand that it is
because he is king and he said so, then when king B says its pink, that it
is.  therefore, the former is replaced by the latter.  but again, that is
not what any of this is about anyway.


> removing the ermine in the first place all that was accomplished was
giving
> weight and justification to those stupid little comments.  and, of course,
> it simply gave way to more stupid comments.  or perhaps you havent heard
> the current joke?

Logan, if this remark were made in a business or government setting, it
would
be grounds for a lawsuit. I count us fortunate that that hasn't happened.
And
"tradition" or no, to change it back opens us up to just such a suit. No one
could plead ignorance of the problem any more.  Going back would be akin to
putting up a swimsuit calendar over the Queen's head AFTER it had already
been taken down for cause.

********
personally i have no idea what you are talking about.  the fact that there
are countless frivolous lawsuits out there doesnt mean that anything is open
to one.  i stand firmly behind by accounting that the change did nothing
other than give credence to the stupid jokes that were being made by a  few.
and that the change only opened up a new venue for jokes (did you miss that
or do you simply not understand it?).  im not sure what lawsuits could be
filed on a situation like that in, or out, or the sca.  to claim that there
is a there is a problem would be very difficult in this situation as it
could just as easily be demonstrated that there is not one.



Personally, I like the idea of new arms that don't include the clam at all.

********

its not a clam it is a scallop (see below).   in closing, please sign off
with some level of identifier.  whether it be a make believe name (as i do)
or a real name.  some closure to a missive simply makes it more credible and
easier for a respondent to address your commentary.

regards
logan



scal·lop   Pronunciation Key  (sklp, skl- skälp) also scol·lop (skl-) or
es·cal·lop (-skl-, -skl-)
n.

Any of various free-swimming marine mollusks of the family Pectinidae,
having fan-shaped bivalve shells with a radiating fluted pattern.



clam1   Pronunciation Key  (klm)
n.

Any of various usually burrowing marine and freshwater bivalve mollusks of
the class Pelecypoda, including members of the genera Venus and Mya, many of
which are edible.