Fw: [MR] Re: Queen's Arms

[chris]

----- Original Message -----
From: "chris" <cschmac at bellsouth.net>
To: <cuban_rapier at yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: [MR] Re: Queen's Arms


> A LAWSUIT!!!!
> Over a scallop shell
> You have got to  be joking
> I've seen a canine chew into two children two separate times. I have yet
to
> see an official posting on how to solve this problem or prevent it in the
> future. Talk about being vulnerable to a Law suit.
>  There wasn't even one email on the list about this dog attack  but this
> scallop has generated this much traffic. Makes me swell with pride.
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Duarte Negrin de los Angeles y Blanco" <cuban_rapier at yahoo.com>
> To: "Merry Rose" <atlantia at atlantia.sca.org>
> Cc: "Logan" <dukelogan at directvinternet.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:37 AM
> 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.
> >
> > >  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.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > > 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 like the idea of new arms that don't include the clam at
> all.
> > ========================================================================
> >                    The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
> >     List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
> >   Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> > Subscriptions:
http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia
>