Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1924Re: [Ayreton] Re: Letter of Intent

Expand Messages
  • John Adams
    Jan 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Given the length of Ian's missive, I'll answer inline.
      -- G

      --- David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:
      > Grimkirk ap Greymoor wrote:
      >> "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.

      Anything over 50% is a 'majority'. And of course, the
      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:
      >> "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.

      I don't recall the words subterfuge or obfuscation
      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 your
      > 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.

      Ian, I'm glad that worked for you. Nobody is saying,
      '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
      > 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.

      'Null and void' are convenient legalese, and not
      terribly SCA. Unless, of course, you're in Milpitas
      these days.

      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
      > 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.

      'We'. Meaning 'us' (you) as opposed to 'them' (the
      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 name
      > 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
      > good!

      True, people may spend their time as they wish. And
      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.

      In Service,

      -- Grimkirk

      Be a better friend, newshound, and
      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic