Oh? Has today’s local Order of the Laurel, with (no doubt) an entirely new membership, so well reformed itself that it has vigorously remedied all those old injustices of the dusty dreary past?
What, no?
Not in 1985? Not in 1990? Not in 1995? Not in 2000? Not in 2005? Not in 2010? Not in 2015?
No movement whatsoever on these issues? The same coteries and cliques are holding to the same positions? Which means the same cronyism is still going on?
Look at those two canaries in the cages, MrDibble. They’re still gasping on their floors.
The offer was probably withdrawn because she showed she lacked honor and a sense of responsibility, and they needed to investigate whether some or all of the remainder of her body of work wasn’t really hers either. It is entirely possible that most of the “quality and volume of work” that had been offered to justify her Laurel was somebody else’s work she’d retyped and stuck her own name on. It is unlikely that this incident was a one-off, because people tend to fall into patterns.
… and what you see here of today’s SCA are two Kingdom Great Officers actively defending the actions taken back by the SCA then, so it’s not just a matter of the dim bygone past, is it?
Honestly, you take everything I say, twist it into something sinister and somehow make me a bad guy. I’m done being beaten over the head for something that happened 30 years ago. People who hold grudges for 30 years are part of the bad side of the SCA, you are bitter about things that, most likely, the people it happened to have probably forgotten.
This is an entirely reasonable answer … save that, in the documentation I’d read, no other such work was alluded to, no need to investigate other such work was alluded to, thus there was no “remainder” beyond the one Handbook. The “pattern” seems to have been sheer intellectual laziness: she picked just one book, retyped the text, traced the pictures, and submitted it, voilà! (Apparently she counted on “connections” for the rest.)
Full disclosure: I was shown all this because some of the original artwork had been mine (heraldic designs: the officers’ seals, Golden Key etc., used by Feilimidh with my permission), and the tracings were indeed unmistakably such.
Nope, but still- that’s not how we do it today, nor for the last few decades.
One Kingdom of 20- one year of 50. Why are you fixated on something that occurred so long ago, in one Kingdom, and has been rectified?
Obviously mistakes were made.
And, they *were fixed. *
Because if that Gentle did that, that would be unchivalrous, and that’s a requirement for a Peerage. Like if a Fighter wins a major Tourney (not Crown) that’s not gonna get him a Knighthood, but if he cheated- then any considerations of a Peerage would be dismissed.
Yes. That’s not how it’s done today, nor for the last several decades. As long as I have been a Peer, anyway. What you indicated was the way things were done has *no resemblance at all *to how they are done today.
But just because someone got screwed, it doesnt mean they get a Peerage as a consolation prize.
By and large, the same coteries and cliques are dead or gone.
Not at all. What I have said is that that’s no longer how it’s done, and altho certainly mistakes were made back then, that was one year out of 50 and one Kingdom out of 20. However, again- the things you indicated that were critical for a Peerage are not and have never been.
A verrry interesting point of view. “Grudge” generally means “resentment for a wrong against oneself”. But here you seem to use the word to mean “recognition that a wrong was committed against someone else”; and that trait, you say, is “part of the bad side of the SCA”? Gosh, I would have thought it a capacity required in order to claim a conscience.
And as to amnesia, no, neither has suffered a traumatic brain injury at last notice.
Oh my goodness, Feilimidh and Gwynfreya were given Laurels? Let me look in the OP! … and… Nope.
Why did you say that?
In Gwynfreya’s case, you mean? Screwed out of a (sole) winner’s announcement? And watching the (bogus) tie-winner get a Laurel, while she, a 2nd-time (true) winner, got none? Fitting to call a Peerage a “consolation prize” in that case, since it was the actual 2nd-placer who received it! No, it’s merely that the “quality” criterion is blatantly manipulated at will (as with the MK A&S rules) and someone who had dutifully met all the Corpora’s requirements (although of course she had never asked for a Laurel) was run over by someone else’s ambition train, because she hadn’t the same “connections” – a matter that has never been “fixed”.
In Feilimidh’s case, how she got screwed was not by being refused anything (she hadn’t asked for a Laurel either) but by getting an explicit ban placed on her name – which was never taken off. Was that unjust? Yes. Was this injustice “fixed”? Not that anyone’s mentioned.
In the sense that membership has continued to grow, diluting the Old Guard’s votes? Yes, but the Old Guard selected the new members, so cliques simply recruit to bolster their votes. Had the actual members of the cliques died or retired, you’d have a point, but leading MK clique members are still active.
No, they werent. But why do you think they deserve Laurels just because someone either put their name on their work, or was erroneously announced as a winner of a competition?
Again- writing a handbook is not grounds for a Laurel. Nor for a dozen handbooks. Maybe a Pelican. Winning competitions is also not grounds for a Laurel.
So even if the handbook had been totally properly accredited- no Laurel.
So even if the competition had been totally properly accredited- no Laurel.
You posted: On the strength of this massive plagiarism, the lady in question had been about to receive a Laurel; But like we have explained over and over- that’s not how Laurels are awarded. Perhaps,* maybe* it’d be one thing in a list of dozens and dozens over years or decades of art & service. Nor do they announce who is* about* to get a Laurel, except perhaps after it’s been offered and accepted and they need to set a Court date.
You posted:* On the strength of his “winning”, that gentleman thereafter received a Laurel.* But like we have explained over and over- that’s not how Laurels are awarded. Perhaps,* maybe* it’d be one thing in a list of dozens and dozens over years or decades of art & service.
I have never sat a Peerage meeting where anyone has even asked for a Peerage to be awarded on the strength of one thing. The closest thing is when some completes two whole years of being a Kingdom Great Officer. Even so- that’s not enough.
Do you have a link to the songs"The S.C.A. Game" and “The Midrealm Laurels” ?
You have twisted my words (amnesia? where did I say that?) enough. I now no longer trust that anything you have said about these two people is in any way the truth.
You leave out the punchline “… and then got [or were about to get] a Laurel citing that accomplishment as justification and thus showing its worth.”
Tell that to the War Court which gave the Laurel to the bogus “Pentathlon Winner”, and cited that competition. Tell it to the Laurels who had the plagiarist up for elevation before that scandal broke.
Apparently the exposure was very close indeed to the actual presentation.
Strictly speaking, winning Pentathlon entries are usually not “one thing”; there are multiple categories to be entered in order to compile a high enough score. Cf. A&S Competitions, where you can if you wish enter just one item.
The first was posted in this thread; neither turns up online elsewhere at this time. (Both were originally pre-DejaNews, thus not archived.) As my original computer and files are long gone, I retyped the first from hardcopy [updating only how long since I’d started] and can do the same with the second if you like.
How optimistic of you. So you’re saying the Pages’ School went on, and on, and on?
And Gwynfreya did not in fact wind up inactive, essentially forgotten by the SCA, with multiple medical disabilities?
What a cheery piece of news to learn. Thank you so much.
Should someone look up both ladies and tell them you said “Or maybe it wasn’t that traumatic and they got on with their lives”? Would it brighten up their spirits immensely? … Uh, on consideration, no, it would be thoughtless and callous.
Or maybe you could just look them up and give them a link to this thread to show them how you splashed their names all over. I’m sure they’d like to see how you’re still fighting the good fight 30 years later.