On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Allison of Forgotten Sea
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I haven't been around for long enough to form my own basic opinion "for" or "against" the 4th, 5th, or 27th peerage. I was just wondering if anyone would like to enlighten me with your opinion or stance on the matter. I hear a lot of people say they are against a 4th peerage, especially in Calontir, yet not a lot of meat to the opinion, if any explanation at all. I would really appreciate it - and hopefully this doesn't start a horrible argument.

I speak for myself and no one else.

I am strongly for *A* fourth Peerage, and strongly against *THIS*
fourth peerage.  I can (and have, repeatedly, and will again) write to
the Board at length on the issue, but briefly:
- I support a clear option for peerage for skill in the various
non-rattan martial arts
- I support a policy that would treat those different activities
evenly - establishing either equivalent or identical awards for them
- My preferred solution would be an inclusive, all martial activities
except rattan peerage
- I would support an alternative that introduced several new peerages
simultaneously, although I consider it significantly sub-ideal
- I would support a solution that expanded the ranks of Chivalry, or
Masters at Arms, but assume that it is politically impossible
- I cannot support a system that addresses a legitimate issue for one
group while ignoring the others (chiefly, equestrian and missile
weapon activities, acknowledging that there may be other smaller
groups I'm not aware of)
- I believe anybody who reads clear support for a rapier-only peerage
out of the census results already knew what answer they wanted to find

- Catrijn

--
Manage your subscription at  http://listserv.unl.edu.
listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.