[MR] Re: *WH* Vivants / Magnus' reply

[rmhowe]

Thorgrimm at aol.com wrote:
>
> --
> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
>    As with any other post on this list, Magnus' are open to public
> discussion. In my somewhat less than completely humble opinion, Magnus' post
> is nothing short of a public attempt at character assassination.

No. Not assasination. Revelation. I'm disappointed you'd think so.
The original post of Logans was posted to a wide forum. Since it
covered a huge area, and where I live, I thought everyone Atlantian
should have a piece of the cake and see how it tastes to them.

> I would like to think that all of the participants in our game strive
> to avoid such petty mudslinging.

Then you are picking the wrong example to defend.

I don't need defending.
I am standing on my own two feet - for a while at least.

> Peers have an obligation to set a higher standard and should be
> above such nonsense.

Right. Exactly my point. When have you seen me do this before on this
list in roughly six years? (Only with unnecessary censorship of my
articles due to Tanner's personal interests.)  Not only should Peers
have higher standards, but we should also stand up to other Peer's
bad behavior.

If you think my behavior stinks, well, consider how rare my complaints
have been.

>   The fact that Logan has pushed himself to reach the level of fighting
> ability necessary to be called "Duke" places his words and deeds underneath a
> microscope of public scrutiny. I've seen this same kind of thing happen with
> other guys who have reached the same level. Anton, Michael, or Logan can do a
> thousand wonderful deeds and services and at the end of the day all that gets
> talked about is something negative that someone thinks one of them said or
> imagines that they did.

You weren't here in 1982 were you? Some of us were. We have different
memories. Since the man is held by some to have improved I won't
recount the events.

> We love to build up heroes but even more we love to tear them down.

Oh please....this is not a bad docu-drama, nor is it English Lit..

Why do you call them heroes? Because their pain threshold is high?

If they are chivalrous, why do they lose control on the field and
necessitate Chivalric or Marshal's courts? I am reliably informed
Logan never made that self-control class discussion at University
and has not re-scheduled it either. This is in violation, right?

To me a -hero- is someone who risks -everything- for someone else.
Like a frontline soldier, airman, sailor, marine, fireman, or some
policemen. People who risk it all, or give up comfortable lives to
serve the rest of us for years. When have you seen that in the SCA?
Sure we have people who serve like the Pelicans, whom incidentally
as a group I hold in the highest regard, but that's not risking it all.

It's not someone who strives for personal aggrandizement and then
addresses/describes other people and peers like they were trash
beneath their feet. All the rest of the flash like awards and
court is something they are allowed to do and helped with doing.
It doesn't involve much personal physical sacrifice for others.
It may be expensive or time consuming to travel.

Wait until you see one intimidate a woman in a Peer meeting like I did.
It actually looked like she was going to be struck to me but instead
the fist coming down ended with a finger in front of her nose and a very
loud "That comment belongs on a polling sheet, and not in this meeting!"

I'll never waste $65 on a motel room for an extra night to attend
an early Laurels meeting again, only to watch the whole bunch insulted
and -not allowed to speak- in the meeting by one of the other Dukes
you have listed. That particular act of telling off all the Laurels
in the South and the North was also repeated in the two Pelican meetings
as I understand it. That all our pollings looked like xeroxes to them,
and we were -told- who the candidates who were going to be elevated were
to be, and any woman (2 or 3) who objected to one candidate's behavior
got shouted down very rudely. I didn't have any objections to the two
he'd chosen myself, but some few people did.

Talk about behavior that will change your mind about whom to respect
and whom not to.... I'm -damn glad- I'm a Horde Member. I couldn't
stand being in a couple of households I know of. I have self-respect.
I can serve the SCA, -and you all know I do-, without being a suck-up.
I've never been a suck-up in my real life either. I suppose I ought to
be
proud of that. Somehow it's never occured to me to be one. At least
I got some non-defective hereditary genes.

[In fact the worse politics have become in Atlantia with the growth
of it and the Peerages, the farther afield in the reenactment world
I try to contribute and participate. Unlike Northern Atlantia, here
in NC we only have the SCA, like some other Peers I know I'd love
to have the alternate opportunities in the Tidewater Area. The spin-offs
who have rewritten the rules for better behavior or more accurate
time periods. The ones who really study the periods.]

A Peer, in my opinion, should stand against this kind of behavior.
It's not only obnoxious, it's disgraceful. It's shameful and we
shouldn't put up with it as a Society.

I don't idolize fighters. Even Dukes. There's no real-life reason to.
I don't think they are any better than -anyone else- in the SCA.
If they are good fighters it should also have everything to do with how
they behave in their personal conduct. On the field and off the field.
That's supposed to be considered -before- they are knighted, how come
not after as well?
[I hope to hell you're not on the same road as some I've seen.]
We're supposed to be doing the BEST Parts of the MIDDLE AGES and
RENAISSANCE, not the Truely Crappy Parts.

You should be a Good SCA member before you gain rank, then you should
-stay- that way. Unfortunately, the SCA doesn't have Watch Periods,
which is a great failing.

And it's much more difficult to Sing Someone Out if they don't
stay good members.

It would behoove them as Peers to act better than I've
seen several when they become Dukes. Some do, some don't.

Sir Forgal is the man I respect most in Atlantia. He's a professional
soldier. He's polite. He's courageous. He's a model of decorum.
He even apologizes for what he knows is inexcusable bad behavior
on the part of others. He's earned everyone's respect. I wish to heaven
he (or someone very much like him) was King, Duke, Warlord, whatever -
EVERYTIME. He can handle it without walking all over other people and
insulting the hell out of them. Like a good, -honorable- MAN.

We apparently have very different types of heros. Forgal is one of mine.

If honesty and standing up for what I think is -right- costs me my
Peerage, then an Atlantian Peerage isn't really worth my having.
It ought to be worth something. It ought to mean you stand up when
you know something is wrong. It ought to mean you're an Alpha and
not a Sheep. I prefer to think I joined Alphas. I could be wrong.
I can tell you quite frankly things look different from this side of
the fence. You see some of the real ugliness behind the scenes.
Some things have been going downhill in some respects for quite a while.

Here in Windmasters we older folks date ourselves by saying "I remember
***** when he was a NICE GUY." [That has become multiple choice.]

Yeah, me too, and I am very sorry to see the nice guys I remember
from when they joined turning abusive and, there is no other word,
- NASTY - to be around.

If I am banished, and Logan probably can, then I can discuss the
situation with Malpitas, and I now know that there are already
complaints there not from me. Besides what's six months? We usually
have dry periods of several months anyway. Big Deal.

LOGAN referred to some of us as COWARDLY LITTLE PEERS remember?
You read it yourself.
Well, I'm not one.
I'll play that game to a very definitive ending if I'm attacked.
NO ONE MAKES A DOOR MAT OF ME, OR MY WIFE.
And be damned careful of my friends.

You may have your own preferences about being a door mat.

I was told who originated that term dog with Logan, and it wasn't me.
It was directed at him only.
So it was multiple Peers logan is aiming his wrath at. Not just me.
I told you I never referred to Atlantian Dukes as dogs. Bad and Good,
yes.

For example, someone is having a lovely time today trying to invade
my computer. Somewhere around 40+ attacks so far this afternoon/evening
from multiple remote addresses. Cute that. That's ten+ times the normal
number. I'm keeping the restricted page open on my firewall. At the end
of the day I am sending the log to Bellsouth. May do some good, may not.
I expect this cowardly behavior to continue.

A man recently wrote me about possibly joining the Great Dark Horde.
This man is a decent guy, and a fairly serious reenactor, trying to
do period kit, but very put off by the politics and behavior of
some people here. He pointed out to me that the Atlantian Rapier folks
are dedicated to serving the Queens because they believe there is a
higher perceived degree of Honor and Behavior amongst their members than
the heavy fighters. [I think I got that right.] I've been told many
times that heavy fighting is decreasing. As I have never been physically
able to do that I can't say. What appealed to him I think was the fact
that my Household has a reputation for standing up for what is right
and opposing bad politics. We do. I do. But I am not relying on my
household. I can speak for myself. WE are -allowed to-. ALL OF US.

I know the SCA membership is constantly growing in Windmasters.
But I've also received letters from people who no longer play because
of some of the ugliness in Atlantia (including this week), but read the
lists to keep up with their friends. Some people like Gil and Alicia
(Remember Gil's Taverns?) were absolute Gems of people who will never
return. They were wonderful folks and I've begged them to come back
many times. I have never found out who it was drove them away. I better
not.

This isn't the SCA the way the SCA should be. Unless we have
VERY DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of HONOR, GOOD BEHAVIOR, and CHIVALRY.
Those last two should be nearly the same.

Another Peer wrote me today that our SCA membership is shrinking because
of it. I didn't think so but he may well be right. Alternate groups
are booming in certain areas.

>   While I readily admit that Lady Cassandra has a somewhat biased opinion of
> Duke Logan, her words were less about taking sides than setting the record
> straight on the allegations against The Evil One. If you're going to fling
> mud at a man you need to have the facts straight.

I took the words, which is all I knew about the situation, right from
Logan at the time. If I am wrong then I got the information from Logan
and in the manner it was delivered I took it as his personal agenda.
Everything else in the discussion clearly involved his personal opinions
of the WH Knight, all the Laurels and Pelicans, and twenty-eight of the
knights. As abusive as the first was I took the rest in context.

While I realize Cassandra may be a Logan supporter, I thought it was
a polite and accurate reply. Since I don't live in Charlotte, and I
am very glad I don't, I have little idea of the local politics. I do
recall being invited to someone's Baronetcy that was suddenly changed
to someone else's. I had declined attending because of Logan and I
probably offended the man who thinks of Logan as a friend by saying so
and giving my reasons why. Se la vie.
I rather suspect politics in Charlesbury Crossing are very much
different than the relative calm in Windmasters' Hill.

Magnus

> Hrothgar