[MR] Waterbearing going forward.

[Alan MacNeill]

Then how, precisely, is the SCA supposed to be able to reconcile all
the rules of each county, state, and city regulatory board, in cooking
and serving feasts?

It's the same problem, if anything, the problem is worse for feasts,
as we charge for feasts, yet the BoD has it's head in the sand.
Feasts are "off the table", but are they really?  No, I can't believe
that.

This is a solution looking for a problem.  I hate to say it, but I
suspect some high powered person got offended by a waterbearer being
"official" and is grinding an axe.

People saying "Oh good, now I don't have to deal with some idiot
shoving a dirty straw in my mouth" missed the fact that they could
always say "No, thank you".

Nothing will be helped by this ruling, any attorney that wants to can
still sue the SCA (we control the space, and we bought the water, we
therefore warrant it's quality...yeah, we might win the suit, but we
might not), and the lack of any ability to enforce, or even request,
standards, will lead to *more* unsanitary situations, not less.

This is a bad idea, bad policy, and dangerous.  And yes, I've
communicated that opinion to the mailbox that promptly dumped my
response into /dev/null, as it doesn't parrot the Corporate Line.

Alan MacNeill
Not writing in any official capacity, and Gorm probably died of the
plague years ago anyhow.

On 6/30/08, Terri Morgan <online2much at cox.net> wrote:
> > I think that waterbearing should be sponsored
> > by the SCA but with strict sanitation guidelines.
>
> I'm assuming that you missed the part in the original letter (it was long)
> about how impossible it will be to reconcile all the rules of each county,
> state, and city regulatory board, and how there is no way to have strict
> sanitary guidelines without running afoul of some of them.