[Artemisia] thought for discussion-

[Chuck Heisler Jr.]

Greetings,
 
I take some exception to this.  In my opinion, Prowess is what defines the various peerages, but in my opinion it is only about one third of what it takes to be a peer. 
 
To clarify, you might be the finest fighting machine that the SCA world has ever seen, but if you lack the other things that are important in being a peer (the other two thirds) then I don't think that person should even be considered.
 
The actual defining prowess is by far, in my opinion, the EASIEST thing to measure, its the other intangibles that are difficult.
 
Sincerely,
 
Conrad v Z
 
 John Johnson <yourguess03 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The thought for discussion- how do you define "Prowess" for each of the

> Peerages?

I think rather than doing specific definitions you may want to consider "Prowess" as being the measuring stick that everybody uses to compare themselves against.  More of the “I want to be 'THAT GOOD' kind of attitude.”  Void of any other consideration, is the individual talented in the discipline or not?

In my opinion, those who define “Prowess” for their discipline (with some rare & noted exceptions) probably should be peers.  Why?  Because competition creates a better product and it’s the best of the fighters, costumers and other disciplines that pushes the SCA forward.  

Michael



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard_______________________________________________
Artemisia mailing list
Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gallowglass.org/pipermail/artemisia/attachments/20031105/188a8e32/attachment.htm