1259Re: [Ayreton] Principality? No, I think not.
- Jul 3, 2007
Re: [Ayreton] Principality? No, I think not.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.
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.
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
(Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesburg.net)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>