Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with

delusions run too far amuck?  First, this is a discussion about

barony, not anything more or less.  This line of discussion is

diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand.  Second, if

you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I

don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it

would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us

together.  It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives

to barony), but its NOT a good idea.  If you don't want a barony,

just state your reasons and leave it at that.  If you do, then become

active in the process.  For that matter, if you don't, then still

become active in the process.  The talk about principality, though,

is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.



Sir Kilian

WIth all due respect, Sir Killian, there are many who might disagree with you.  To simply dismiss that as a "delusion" cannot possibly be any less counterproductive than believing in the "delusion" to begin with.

In service,


Andrew

On 7/3/07, Mike / Kilian <sirkilian@...> wrote:

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with
delusions run too far amuck? First, this is a discussion about
barony, not anything more or less. This line of discussion is
diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand. Second, if
you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I
don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it
would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us
together. It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives
to barony), but its NOT a good idea. If you don't want a barony,
just state your reasons and leave it at that. If you do, then become
active in the process. For that matter, if you don't, then still
become active in the process. The talk about principality, though,
is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

-- 

While I am an adamant believer in a principality for the Midlands and have been for 15 years, I have to agree with Killian that it is counter productive and irrelevant to the discussion of a Barony in Ayerton. In fact I think that having a Barony in the Chicagoland area would but a useful thing to show that we are ready to be a principality. But there is no need to mix the two of them up, IMO.

WIth all due respect, Sir Killian, there are many who might disagree with you.  To simply dismiss that as a "delusion" cannot possibly be any less counterproductive than believing in the "delusion" to begin with.

In service,


Andrew
On 7/3/07, Mike / Kilian <sirkilian@...> wrote:

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with

delusions run too far amuck? First, this is a discussion about

barony, not anything more or less. This line of discussion is

diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand. Second, if

you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I

don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it

would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us

together. It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives

to barony), but its NOT a good idea. If you don't want a barony,

just state your reasons and leave it at that. If you do, then become

active in the process. For that matter, if you don't, then still

become active in the process. The talk about principality, though,

is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

-- 

Sir Ixtilixochitl
Middle Kingdom - http://www.midrealm.org
Midlands - http://www.themidlands.org
House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefinis.org
March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorrow.org
KSCA, OP

(Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesburg.net)

It is, perhaps, time to uncloak for a moment.

First disclaimer: This is a decision for the people living in the area. My opinion is worth the electrons that communicate it. But I'll express it anyhow, because I think there's a slightly different twist on this.

I've been active for something like 19 years. In that time I've seen the Chicago area go from a group of strong but nearly violently independent groups to a much more cohesive whole. My sense from the traffic is that there is an agreement that everyone can play together, which is a new and novel thing compared to, say, 10 years ago.

There are some fun things being done between Illiton and Shattered Crystal with Baronial Alliances, etc. It's good theater, and it's good fun. Adding an Ayreton into the mix would make for more opportunities AS A REGION to do these sorts of things. So, from my perspective, the region would benefit from a new active Barony.

The merits of what it does for the groups involved I think has been pretty well covered otherwise.

I'll also observe that the Midlands as a fighting force was by no means a painless thing to develop, and it needs a constant level of maintenance to keep it viable. This would not be painless either, but I think it could be handled very well as long as everyone understands it does NOT mean that Ayreton is going to become insular. I haven't gotten any hint of that from the discussion, but people will make assumptions lacking other knowledge. The mundane state of affairs doesn't help that perception.

Dietrich "just running on at the fingers" von Andernach

-------------- Original message from Sir Ix <ix@...>: --------------

While I am an adamant believer in a principality for the Midlands and have been for 15 years, I have to agree with Killian that it is counter productive and irrelevant to the discussion of a Barony in Ayerton. In fact I think that having a Barony in the Chicagoland area would but a useful thing to show that we are ready to be a principality. But there is no need to mix the two of them up, IMO.

WIth all due respect, Sir Killian, there are many who might disagree with you.  To simply dismiss that as a "delusion" cannot possibly be any less counterproductive than believing in the "delusion" to begin with.

In service,


Andrew

On 7/3/07, Mike / Kilian <sirkilian@comcast.net> wrote:

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with
delusions run too far amuck? First, this is a discussion about
barony, not anything more or less. This line of discussion is
diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand. Second, if
you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I
don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it
would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us
together. It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives
to barony), but its NOT a good idea. If you don't want a barony,
just state your reasons and leave it at that. If you do, then become
active in the process. For that matter, if you don't, then still
become active in the process. The talk about principality, though,
is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

-- 

Sir Ixtilixochitl
Middle Kingdom - http://www.midrealm.org
Midlands - http://www.themidlands.org
House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefinis.org
March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorrow.org
KSCA, OP

(Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesburg.net)

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Sir Ix <ix@...>

While I am an adamant believer in a principality for the Midlands and have been for 15 years, I have to agree with Killian that it is counter productive and irrelevant to the discussion of a Barony in Ayerton. In fact I think that having a Barony in the Chicagoland area would but a useful thing to show that we are ready to be a principality. But there is no need to mix the two of them up, IMO.

WIth all due respect, Sir Killian, there are many who might disagree with you.  To simply dismiss that as a "delusion" cannot possibly be any less counterproductive than believing in the "delusion" to begin with.

In service,


Andrew

On 7/3/07, Mike / Kilian <sirkilian@comcast.net> wrote:

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with
delusions run too far amuck? First, this is a discussion about
barony, not anything more or less. This line of discussion is
diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand. Second, if
you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I
don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it
would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us
together. It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives
to barony), but its NOT a good idea. If you don't want a barony,
just state your reasons and leave it at that. If you do, then become
active in the process. For that matter, if you don't, then still
become active in the process. The talk about principality, though,
is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

-- 

Sir Ixtilixochitl
Middle Kingdom - http://www.midrealm.org
Midlands - http://www.themidlands.org
House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefinis.org
March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorrow.org
KSCA, OP

(Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesburg.net)

-----Original Message-----
From: Scribesquire@...
Sent: Jul 3, 2007 1:42 PM
To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Principality? No, I think not.

I also concur with Sir Killian.  This was and should be a discussion on whether to become a barony or not.

 

Henry

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Sir Ix <ix@terraefinis.org>

While I am an adamant believer in a principality for the Midlands and have been for 15 years, I have to agree with Killian that it is counter productive and irrelevant to the discussion of a Barony in Ayerton. In fact I think that having a Barony in the Chicagoland area would but a useful thing to show that we are ready to be a principality. But there is no need to mix the two of them up, IMO.

WIth all due respect, Sir Killian, there are many who might disagree with you.  To simply dismiss that as a "delusion" cannot possibly be any less counterproductive than believing in the "delusion" to begin with.

In service,


Andrew

On 7/3/07, Mike / Kilian <sirkilian@comcast.net> wrote:

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with
delusions run too far amuck? First, this is a discussion about
barony, not anything more or less. This line of discussion is
diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand. Second, if
you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I
don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it
would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us
together. It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives
to barony), but its NOT a good idea. If you don't want a barony,
just state your reasons and leave it at that. If you do, then become
active in the process. For that matter, if you don't, then still
become active in the process. The talk about principality, though,
is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

-- 

Sir Ixtilixochitl
Middle Kingdom - http://www.midrealm.org
Midlands - http://www.themidlands.org
House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefinis.org
March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorrow.org
KSCA, OP

(Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesburg.net)

Recent Activity

•  6
  New Members

Visit Your Group

SPONSORED LINKS

• Society for creative anachronism
• Medieval costume
• Medieval knights
• Medieval costume woman

Yahoo! News

Kevin Sites

Get coverage of

world crises.

Yahoo! TV

Staying in tonight?

Check Daily Picks &

see what to watch.

Yahoo! Avatars

Express Yourself

Show your face in

Messenger & more.

.