1924Re: [Ayreton] Re: Letter of Intent
- Jan 30, 2008Given the length of Ian's missive, I'll answer inline.
--- David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:
> Grimkirk ap Greymoor wrote:Anything over 50% is a 'majority'. And of course, the
>> "Average not clearly in favor: 34.54%"
> That would mean that 65.46% of people ARE
> clearly in favor. That is Nearly 2 to 1 or
> twice as many people CLEARLY IN FAVOR as
> not clearly in favor.
> To intimate in any way that this is not a
> clear majority would be nothing more than
> pot stirring in my opinion and I wouldn't
> want to be forced to believe that of you.
farther you get from 50%, the 'clearer' some things
become, especially for the winners. However, if this
issue was 'clearly' about it being 2:1 in favor, and
nothing else mattered, then you might as well take the
remaining third or so out back and shoot them (winners
writing history), so that those in favor can go along
their merry way with unfettered conscience.
Yes, Ian, in a democracy, losers of a vote generally
have to live with the will of the 'majority'. But I do
not care to think that the members of *this* community
are so self-centered as to want to fracture our
carefully crafted harmony.
You may believe what you wish of me, especially if you
are among those who can so easily discard the 1/3rd of
the population this proposal's advocates are prepared
to leave in the dust, or drag through this mess. I'm
pretty sure nobody's got a knife at your throat
'forcing' you to think anything you don't wish to
think of your own accord.
> Grimkirk ap Greymoor also wrote:I don't recall the words subterfuge or obfuscation
>> "Note: There are several other individuals whom
>> I know for a fact are not represented in these
>> dissenting figures who have as recently as this
>> weekend, clearly expressed opposition to your
>> committee's proposal (including at least two
>> Royal Peers). Their only misdeed was not being
>> available for or aware of the polls at the
>> particular date and time they were conducted."
> Aaah the argument of "ghost" people. With
> respect, (and I'm utterly certain that these
> "ghost" people do exist by the way), the same
> can be said for those that are in favor. Several
> of them peers as well. Votes were announced
> well beforehand, over a several month period,
> there was no subterfuge or attempts to obfuscate.
> To say or imply otherwise would be to call the
> honor of those seneschals and involved individuals
> into question. I was there, I saw, it was done
> with clarity and announced well before hand.
ever entering into my dialog. These are your words,
Ian, and sadly, they are the words of inflamation and
baiting. As I indicated, those who missed the simple
poll, simply missed it. A minor transgression, but
their voices should still be important to this
project's architects, if the goal is to genuinely
benefit the community, and is not just a self-serving
one. Creating significant conflict isn't usually seen
to be beneficial.
As for your 'ghosts' (and Peers), their voices deserve
to be heard as well. However, it comes as no surprise
that they're not here proclaiming their right to be
heard, since 'Me Too!' as an echo to a victory which
has already been declared seems a poor use of the
forum. But they're certainly welcome to.
> My rememedy is to pay attention to what yourIan, I'm glad that worked for you. Nobody is saying,
> local group is doing and things won't slip by
> you that you are for or against. It would be
> the same thing if your favorite store had a sale,
> advertised it, and then you said, hey they
> should do it again because they didn't come
> knock on my door and tell me personally.
'Hey! Poll us again.' What is being said is that 'If
your intentions are indeed noble, then perhaps you
should take a second look. Especially since the
numbers are so glaring.' If you don't care, go right
ahead. Numbers in the 60's are hardly a mandate. If
they'd been in the 80's or 90's, I'd probably be
grousing in my Guinness, and that'd be the end of it.
> Because of the well announced votes over a time'Null and void' are convenient legalese, and not
> period any discussion based off of "ghost" people
> clearly in favor or not clearly in favor is null
> and void before it begins and so therefor is any
> argument or discussion based off of it.
terribly SCA. Unless, of course, you're in Milpitas
The numbers I posted only reflected the opinions of
the 3 additional people in one specific group. Even
without them, those not clearly in favor would have
been 21.0%. The numbers from other groups stand
unaltered. If you re-average on that, the percentage
not clearly in favor drops only to 33.0 percent, still
a 'clear' third of those polled at the time of
polling. Are you now claiming those individuals who
were present and failed to cast their lot in with you
'null and void'? While I am fairly certain you are
not, your commentary certainly gives that impression.
At the very least, to me.
> We as the five groups that on average were'We'. Meaning 'us' (you) as opposed to 'them' (the
> nearly 2 to 1 in favor, a clear majority, have
> tendered our letter of intent to the Crown of
> the Middle Kingdom. We are onto the next step.
> At this point we wait for word from the Crown.
> It will come as a yes or no and things will
> proceed from there as they may. And it is
> reasonable and good for people, even those who
> are clearly in favor, to have some nervousness
> or apprehension about this process. It is
> equally reasonable to be forward looking and
> happy about it as well. I'm sure there is a
> running of the gambit on this.
others). Yeah, this is a Barony we can ALL look
forward to (including the 2/3 who thought it was a
good idea at the time).
> If people wish to think about a period nameTrue, people may spend their time as they wish. And
> other than Ayreton, let them. No harm can
> come of it and something good may. If we never
> become a barony and we change our name to
> something else that people like it, then good!
> If people wish to think about and design
> heraldry for the Towne, let them. No harm can
> come of it and something good may. The Midlands
> Badge, Bob, is a rallying point and nice symbol
> but the Midlands has not Baron or Prince over
> it and it is good to have. And Bob is registered
> to an individual not the region. If this
> happens for Ayreton and people like it, then
the heraldic aspects of the SCA are certainly some of
the most enjoyable. My original suggestion simply
promotes the idea that perhaps it would be better to
see to the welfare of the community before putting
painting a house in the rain.
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>