[MR] Clarification of position on SCA ruling

[Siegfried]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Given a few private emails I received ... it appears that my position
got muddled via it being spread over a few emails ... to be point that I
had some very STRONGLY worded private emails sent to me in response.

To clarify, succiently, my points:

I personally believe that these background checks will cause extra
headaches of money, paperwork, and time, without offering sufficient
extra protection for our children to be worth all that.  I also feel
that it is a poor substitute for 'parents take care of your own'.

I attempted, via reductio ad absurdum, to make a point ... that given
the large number of people who 'might' help with children's activities,
and given that people in the SCA are generally VERY helpful, that the
logical endpoint of this ruling, would end up having every single SCA
person end up having the background check, just so that they could help,
'in case' they might be needed.

That, to me, was a logical end point, and an absurd one, which would
help illustrate one manner in which ruling, as stated, had issues.

It appears that the fact that I was arguing by reductio ad absurdum was
missed by some people (and is a reason why such arguments are often
difficult, and why I shouldn't have used said type of logical argument),
and instead people interpretted my statements as meaning that I was
suggesting/encouraging/demanding that everyone in the SCA do go get a
background check, and that they aren't a good SCAdian (or person), if
they don't.

That is 100% the opposite, of my own beliefs.  I apologize to those who
interpreted my comments to that end.

In Service,
Siegfried
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGHlzIUTBVzmoxCKIRAmvgAJ9FfpgF9iAXbBsx8ZE+ssF8+yyiPQCcCemU
MHI20QTcnsnANknCykgI5tM=
=6+ML
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----