Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 13:48:44 EST
From: justin@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Mark Waks)
Message-Id: <9401181848.AA04510@dsd.camb.inmet.com>
To: schuldy@math.harvard.edu
Cc: dagoura@MIT.EDU, carolingia@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9401181817.AA12364@math.harvard.edu> (schuldy@math.harvard.edu)
Subject: Re: Principality Meeting

(Oh, boy -- I can tell that this is going to be one of those days when I
don't get much accomplished at work...)

Just one comment on Tibor's map of his Ideal Principality: it's *very*
indicative of a common problem in drawing these broders, that most
people have a somewhat local view of the problem. *Everyone* sees the
ideal Principality as including roughly three or four groups deep in
every direction, because those are the people they are used to playing
with. The fact that I see significant disagreement on this point from
place to place and person to person is one reason why I feel that there
isn't a particularly clear "identity" in the region.

(There are some common points -- for example, every fencer I know
feels that Carolingia, Malagentia, and Bergental are an obvious
combination. But those tend to vary depending on your interests --
for example, I visit Malagentia once in a blue moon, maybe a fourth
as often as I get down to the NJ groups...)

In the large scale, I honestly don't believe we have a strong identity
in the way that, say, Calontir or Ealdormere did...

				-- Justin

Random Quote du Jour:

"Fashion dictates that vegetable sex use prepared foods (crudite is,
 comment dit on, crude) and the current rage is S&M with ratatouile."
		-- jim