🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec29.155739.27343@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> bnostran@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Solveig Throndardottir) writes:
)Nobles!

	Very few of reading this group I bet.
 
)It seems to me that while there is a general lack of discussion in this
)group that there is a lot of discussion of heraldic matters which have
)general interest in rec.org.sca and the CoA mailing list.  I still think
)that these discussions belong in this forum.  I see no advantage to
)distributing heraldic discussions in rec.org.sca as they will then be
)disseminated to exactly the same sites as rec.heraldry.

	This group is for discussion of Heraldry and related matters.
SCA heraldry is only a very small subset of that subject, and one of only
limited interest, I suspect, to the majority of the readers of this
group (it is also of interest to only a very limited set of readers of 
rec.org.sca, but that is another story...)

	There is not, as far as I know, a CoA mailing list in electronic
form.  There is a mailing list for discussion among SCA heralds, but
that is *not* the same thing.  SCAHRLDS has no official status with
either the SCA or with its College of Arms.  It is a tool, like an
armorial.

	If SCA-specific heraldic discussion has any place on USENET, it 
would be rec.org.sca.  If it becomes non-SCA specific (and the discussion
you are refering to is not) then it might belong here.


-- 
Vnend, Lottery winner #316                 Ignorance is the mother of adventure.  
vnend@princeton.edu, vnend@pucc.bitnet, or {backbone}!princeton!nudity!vnend        
        Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!):vnend@ms.uky.edu                          
  The other car collided with mine without giving warning of its intentions.