Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news3.cac.psu.edu!usenet From: Duane Brocious Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Improving the CoA, was: enforced non-history by the CoA Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:18:14 -0500 Organization: PSU Lines: 69 Message-ID: <35140466.2D44@psu.edu> References: <3511FC41.1623@psu.edu> <1998032014223501.JAA07984@ladder03.news.aol.com> <35129BC1.21DA@psu.edu> <351306DB.16497AD1@dayton.wright.edu> <35133970.472E@psu.edu> <3513FB9C.77B5989@dayton.wright.edu> Reply-To: dnb105@psu.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: nb5ppp178.cac.psu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I) John wrote: > No, Corpora says that Laurel & the College of Arms are to handle issues of > heraldry, not post-13th C. heraldry (what does the 13th C. have to do with > it anyway?). Does it say "and nothing else" ? Is it an inclusive or exclusive clause ? Is there only one way of interpreting the clause ? > the fact that it is outside the CoA's authority to do so is obviously relevant. This may not be a fact based upon the answers to the above questions. > For example, from my very first post on the subject: > > >>CoA doesn't address the reality of our entire period > > > >What does? I thought you were being rhetorical (ie: the SCA doesn't address _any_ "reality") > In my next message, which you also replied to, I asked you to: > > >please explain why you continue to talk about the CoA's > >supposed "post 13th century" bias, since as I said previously heraldic armory > >developed in the 12th C. By limitng the interpretation of Coprpora to limit the term "arms" to refer to the post 13th century of "heraldry" it is inherently biased against pre-13 th century "arms" like those on the Bayeaux Tapestry (which was discussed here). This inherent bias _could_ be eliminated any some folks in the CoA are investigatin pre-heraldic arms (also discussed here) > >Fine, then first off, please provide evidence that the designs you are > >talking about were in fact used for "difference and identification" -- I > >say this because, for the most part, they weren't. Bull, The tapestry example and non-heraldic shields discussed here recently are evidence. > >Ferret, what you're asking for is that the CoA co-opt non-heraldic designs > >and _invent_ rules about how they should be (inauthentically) used to > >identify their bearers and distinguish (i.e. "difference") them from others! > >Good grief, _why_ would you want to introduce such an incredible > >inauthenticity? Inauthentic ? period display sometimes had different people having the same displays just like in modern times several people can have identical names with little confusion. What you imply is that an _inauthentic_ method be devised. I never suggested inventing any rules. I suggested documentation of use and no guarantee of exclusivity. Just like in pre-13th century arms and displays. > So, it can be shown that I have in fact asked several questions, which > although you claim to have not seen, obviously you did. You show that I read them and answered them directly and indirectly. You have demonstrated that you either can't read or can't remember. In either case I won't respond to you further since it pointless. Play your games with someone else, I don't do flamewars with the feeble-minded. Folks like yo don't make me think about anything except about how ignorant some people can be. Ferret ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ais.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.ime.net!not-for-mail From: "Anne Washburne" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Improving the CoA, was: enforced non-history by the CoA Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 02:30:17 -0500 Organization: Internet Maine/HarvardNet Lines: 42 Message-ID: <6f5364$2qm$1@news.ime.net> References: <3511FC41.1623@psu.edu> <1998032014223501.JAA07984@ladder03.news.aol.com> <35129BC1.21DA@psu.edu> <351306DB.16497AD1@dayton.wright.edu> <35133970.472E@psu.edu> <3513FB9C.77B5989@dayton.wright.edu> <35140466.2D44@psu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.90.193.39 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Duane Brocious wrote in message <35140466.2D44@psu.edu>... >I never suggested inventing any rules. I suggested documentation of use >and no guarantee of exclusivity. Just like in pre-13th century arms and >displays. Ferret, can you please explain what the point would be of "registering" any sort of visual design for "difference and identification" if there was no guarantee of exclusivity? How would that be different from what we have now, where you can _use_ nearly anything you want, but there is no guarantee of exclusivity? Isn't the whole point of "registering" this visual design that it would be yours and yours alone? Isn't that what "difference and identification" _means_ -- that this visual design can be identified as yours and yours alone because you have a "guarantee of exclusivity" through the registration process? And what the heck do you mean by "documentation of use" by whom? By you? Or authentication of use of similar designs by "pre 17-th century" people? If the latter, then wouldn't someone have to invent _some_ rules? Speaking as one who has fought many battles with the CoA, I can understand that it can be frustrating to have a name and/or visual design that you'd really, really like to register as your own, but can't. However, just because you can't register it doesn't mean you can't use it -- you can, you're just not guaranteed exclusive rights to it. However, that doesn't seem to be the issue, either. If this issue is that you feel you are being discriminated against in some way by either local or Kingdom custom by not having gone through the registration process, then the problem may lie with the custom, rather than with you and your persona. We have already established amply that Arms are not appropriate to all personas. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I see this getting ugly, and it doesn't need to be. If you have a specific issue, maybe someone around here can help you resolve it. Anastasia ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!agate!usenet From: "Frederick (Flieg) Hollander" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Improving the CoA, was: enforced non-history by the CoA Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 15:33:38 -0800 Organization: Univ. of Cal. -- Berkeley Lines: 62 Message-ID: <3516F152.44CE@socrates.Berkeley.edu> References: <358_9803120902@tor250.org> <3510b9c6.2174169@news.csuohio.edu> <6erged$c8h@lace.colorado.edu> <3511EA1E.FA34C857@dayton.wright.edu> <6f6d9i$l9s@lace.colorado.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: xraytoo.cchem.berkeley.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) Flieg here -- just a quick note: T Charles Buckley wrote: [.trim.] > >information for "rules" about these non-heraldic designs you think they should > >be addressing? > > > > From Corpora: > > 1. Laurel Sovereign of Arms. The Laurel Sovereign of Arms > (Laurel) is the principal heraldic officer of the Society and the > head of the College of Arms. Laurel is responsible for fostering > the study and practice of heraldry, and for establishing rules and > making determinations regarding names and armory, royal and > noble titles, and geographical designations to be approved for > use in the Society. (See Appendix C.) > > Given that this person is responsible for the rules for names and armory, > you have to ask if the rules they have apply to the membership as shown by > registered names. A registerable name without a period registerable device > for that person is an ommission in the rules. Hunh? Please note, everyone: THE COLLEGE OF ARMS DOES NOT DEAL WITH PERSONA! The College of Arms, under its charter, deals with names and heraldry. If it isn't heraldry (i.e., based on inheritable devices used for personal and/or familial identification in the original middle ages), then it isn't the area of the College. If you want to be a 10th C. Norse adventurer (viking is such a _vulgar_ word, don't you think...) then the College has a _lot_ of information on how your name would work. It also has a lot of information which says that there is no armory/heraldry to go with that name. But since it doesn't deal with persona, you can go ahead (if you want to) and register a device just the same. The CoA doesn't care that it isn't historic for your persona; it just ought to be related to heraldry that is historic for _some_ person. We don't enforce non-history. We don't even enforce history. [trim.] -- ============================================================================== Dr. Frederick J. Hollander, Crystallographer : CHEXRAY -- College of Chemistry University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1460, USA Ph: 510-642-8444 ///FAX: 510-642-9295 /// flieg@socrates.berkeley.edu ============================================================================== ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!boulder!buckley From: buckley@Colorado.EDU (Charles Buckley) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Improving the CoA, was: enforced non-history by the CoA Date: 23 Mar 1998 19:30:58 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lines: 77 Message-ID: <6f6d9i$l9s@lace.colorado.edu> References: <358_9803120902@tor250.org> <3510b9c6.2174169@news.csuohio.edu> <6erged$c8h@lace.colorado.edu> <3511EA1E.FA34C857@dayton.wright.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: refuge.colorado.edu NNTP-Posting-User: buckley In article <3511EA1E.FA34C857@dayton.wright.edu>, John wrote: >> But, they use the rules for heraldy developed in a much later era and >>use rules and definitions from completely out of period, or in a complete >>non-period usage. > >I don't suppose you have any examples you can cite? > >> And, more specifically " they cover any period culture that used heraldry" >>is the problem in that the rules are geared towards all members. > >No, they aren't. The Rules for Submissions of the SCA's College of Arms are >for those members of the SCA that want to use them. They don't pretend to >cover all possible shield or personal emblems used prior to the year 1601. The >problem seems to be that you think they _should_. Fine, but since just a few >lines earlier in your message you complain about the supposed late- and non- >period rules currently in use, where do you suggest we should go to obtain >information for "rules" about these non-heraldic designs you think they should >be addressing? > From Corpora: 1. Laurel Sovereign of Arms. The Laurel Sovereign of Arms (Laurel) is the principal heraldic officer of the Society and the head of the College of Arms. Laurel is responsible for fostering the study and practice of heraldry, and for establishing rules and making determinations regarding names and armory, royal and noble titles, and geographical designations to be approved for use in the Society. (See Appendix C.) Given that this person is responsible for the rules for names and armory, you have to ask if the rules they have apply to the membership as shown by registered names. A registerable name without a period registerable device for that person is an ommission in the rules. >> The beginning period is specifically left unstated in any of the SCA >>documents. > >You seem to believe that every organization that operates within the SCA >should address every persona type in use (or which could reasonably be >used). That's certainly an opinion you're welcome to, but to take an obvious >example the Marshallate doesn't address all weapons used prior to 1601; >it is quite obviously not true that simply by virtue of operating within the >SCA a group does have or should have a responsibility to address itself >towards every possible persona-type. > I believe that they should be self-consistant. The same organization that registers names refuses to acknowledge period practices of the persona that they are the source of authenticity for. If they don't have an armorial for a persona - fine. Then don't deal with the persona. > >>There's an inherent contradiction between trying to recreate aspects of >>the middle ages, the sticking in a bureaucratic process that enforces a >>violation of those stated goals. > >And would you care to explain how an organization that is set up to address >an _aspect_ of the middle ages is in violation of the SCA's goal? > Once again above I detailed out their charter. It's functionality is contradictory with it's practices. The study of heraldry is not defined as anglo-norman. Is a japanese persona registerable with the COA? Is their heraldry? The CoA is charged with fostering th study of heraldry. How is that accomplished when there is no discernable learning on *their* part. They have defined a specific style of heraldy that people wishing to register must conform to. A persona who has a period, non-registerable device is doing the study in spite of the CoA. -- "You really have to get technical to be really crude" -- William Gibson ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.232.20.2!malgudi.oar.net!news.csuohio.edu!not-for-mail From: scott@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Improving the CoA, was: enforced non-history by the CoA Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:03:40 GMT Organization: Cleveland State University Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3516e8a5.21245892@news.csuohio.edu> References: <3511FC41.1623@psu.edu> <1998032014223501.JAA07984@ladder03.news.aol.com> <35129BC1.21DA@psu.edu> <351306DB.16497AD1@dayton.wright.edu> <35133970.472E@psu.edu> <3513FB9C.77B5989@dayton.wright.edu> <35140466.2D44@psu.edu> <6f5364$2qm$1@news.ime.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: portc43.async.csuohio.edu X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 02:30:17 -0500, "Anne Washburne" wrote: >Ferret, can you please explain what the point would be of "registering" any sort >of visual design for "difference and identification" if there was no guarantee >of exclusivity? How would that be different from what we have now, where you >can _use_ nearly anything you want, but there is no guarantee of exclusivity? Ferret actually has offered a justification. He doesn't care about exclusivity; he wants the official imprimatur. He says that at least in some places it is essentially impossible to get an AoA and be accepted as a full-fledged participant if one doesn't register a name and arms. I've never seen this deplorable phenomenon, but I'm willing to believe that it exists. Certainly there are kingdoms in which one must at least have a submission in progress in order to enter Crown Tournament. His point, as I understand it, is that this problem would go away if the CoA officially took notice of non-heraldic emblems. I'm not entirely sure that he's right, but more important, I think that this is a remarkably silly way to solve the problem. The problem is the attitude, not the fact that the CoA does more or less what a CoA might be expected to do. Talan Gwynek ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.idt.net!nntp2.cerf.net!nntp3.cerf.net!news.sdsc.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!usenet From: "Bryan J. Maloney" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Improving the CoA, was: enforced non-history by the CoA Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:44:25 -0500 Organization: Ikki, ikki, ikki, p'teng. Zoo-phoing! Lines: 11 Sender: bjm10@cornell.edu (Verified) Message-ID: <35184557.660B@cornell.edu> References: <3511FC41.1623@psu.edu> <1998032014223501.JAA07984@ladder03.news.aol.com> <35129BC1.21DA@psu.edu> <351306DB.16497AD1@dayton.wright.edu> <35133970.472E@psu.edu> <3513FB9C.77B5989@dayton.wright.edu> <35140466.2D44@psu.edu> <6f5364$2qm$1@news.ime.net> <35181290.10DA9400@ccw.ch> Reply-To: bjm10@cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC) > Anne Washburne wrote: > > Isn't the whole point of "registering" this visual design that it would be yours > > and yours alone? Isn't that what "difference and identification" _means_ -- > > that this visual design can be identified as yours and yours alone because you > > have a "guarantee of exclusivity" through the registration process? Actually, there is no such guarantee in the SCA. The only guarantee that registration with the CoA entails is that the CoA will not register an identical coat of arms. That's it. The CoA has no enforcement power, whatsoever. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Improving the CoA, was: enforced non-history by the CoA Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:07:44 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 65 Message-ID: <35181290.10DA9400@ccw.ch> References: <3511FC41.1623@psu.edu> <1998032014223501.JAA07984@ladder03.news.aol.com> <35129BC1.21DA@psu.edu> <351306DB.16497AD1@dayton.wright.edu> <35133970.472E@psu.edu> <3513FB9C.77B5989@dayton.wright.edu> <35140466.2D44@psu.edu> <6f5364$2qm$1@news.ime.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Anne Washburne wrote: > Ferret, can you please explain what the point would be of "registering" any sort > of visual design for "difference and identification" if there was no guarantee > of exclusivity? How would that be different from what we have now, where you > can _use_ nearly anything you want, but there is no guarantee of exclusivity? > > Isn't the whole point of "registering" this visual design that it would be yours > and yours alone? Isn't that what "difference and identification" _means_ -- > that this visual design can be identified as yours and yours alone because you > have a "guarantee of exclusivity" through the registration process? Milady, I have to disagree with you While I can't add to the debate about the Tapestry or about from when on heraldry existed, I can comment on your statement about usefullness. Even a form of identification that is not unique can be valuable. Look at following numbers: You have (say) 1000 knights and you want to destinguisch them. Without any form of design/devices/arms you will have to use things such as shape (long/short, thin/sqat) or size. (I am assuming you can't see the faces due to the helmets). Now add devices, where everyone choses by their own desires from elements offered, no checking for duplicates. The elements offer say 100'000 combinations of colour, element, amount of them, arangement. Now you will have to expect a few people to chose the same ones. But how many will accidently end up like this? Even more important even if a few devices are duplicated how many will be triplicates (most likely none or a very few). Now meet an other knight on the field. Without devices you now have 1000 potential people in front of you. With unique devices you will be able to pinpoint that knight exactly. With non unique devices you will still be able to cut down from 1000 knights to 1 (mostley), 2 (seldom) or 3 (hardley ever). That is still a _lot_ better than no devices what so ever. Mostley-1 is a lot nearer to allwas-1 than to allways-1000. So yes, non unique devices are also usefull, for _aiding_ identification, allthough not for _solving_ identification. I see no reason why the people in 1066 would have given up this level of identification, just because full guaranteed identification was only available at unaffordable cost (registering all devices of all knights ever to face any other would in an pre-postal-system world have been immencely expensive (not to mention time delays until a knight could start taking part in fights, the CoA takes many months with todays technology and 30'000 SCAdians)). We today in a mundane world of bureaucracy are used to unique identification, but how much would that have been part of an medieval knights mental model, which was after all derived from experiencing a very small section of the world and filing every thing outside as "foreign, unknown"? Yours... -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Improving the CoA, was: enforced non-history by the CoA Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:36:35 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 13 Message-ID: <35193293.6F4F9B27@ccw.ch> References: <358_9803120902@tor250.org> <3510b9c6.2174169@news.csuohio.edu> <6erged$c8h@lace.colorado.edu> <3511EA1E.FA34C857@dayton.wright.edu> <6f6d9i$l9s@lace.colorado.edu> <3516F152.44CE@socrates.Berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Frederick (Flieg) Hollander wrote: > > If you want to be a 10th C. Norse adventurer (viking is such a > _vulgar_ word, don't you think...) How Politically Correct (euphemistical is such a _vulgar_word...) ;-) -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/