[Artemisia] thought for discussion-

[Sondra Gibson]

Well said.  You beat me to it, and said it better than I probably would
have.
 
Gefjon
 

 
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  <http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree> 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  <http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree> your identity with Yahoo!
Mail AddressGuard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gallowglass.org/pipermail/artemisia/attachments/20031105/12143c06/attachment.htm