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

Re: [Ayreton] Principality? No, I think not.

Expand Messages
  • s_krause@mchsi.com
    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
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      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.themidla nds.org
      House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefi nis.org
      March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorr ow.org
      KSCA, OP

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

    • Scribesquire@comcast.net
      I also concur with Sir Killian. This was and should be a discussion on whether to become a barony or not. Henry ... From: Sir Ix While I
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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@...>

        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.themidla nds.org
        House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefi nis.org
        March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorr ow.org
        KSCA, OP

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

      • Mike / Kilian
        Thank you, Sir Ix, for making that more clear. -Kilian
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you, Sir Ix, for making that more clear.

          -Kilian

          At 01:23 PM 7/3/2007, you wrote:

          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)
        • kfinegan@ria.net
          If I remember correctly, this discussion was prompted by the Lord Mayor s original informal polling of the area to see if people wanted to formalize the
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            If I remember correctly, this discussion was prompted by the Lord Mayor's original informal polling of the area to see if people wanted to formalize the Ayreton structure.  The Barony discussion stemmed from this original question.
             
            A discussion of going Principality, if it is seen as having some of the same benefits as going Barony, would seem to me, at least, to be quite germane to the discussion.
             
            I do not believe that we should limit this discussion.  Anyone who is making a choice (Barony or not Barony, Principality or Not  Principality, Barony or Principality or Neither) should have information about _all_ possibilities, and people should be able to discuss the pros and cons of all choices freely.
            For some people, I imagine that the option of having a Midlands Principality (if that is, in fact, a possiblity) for local Royalty and Court and recognition would change their opinion on having an Ayreton Barony for the same purpose. 
             
            Strictly hypothetically, if someone voted for a Barony to have local Royals, and then a year later there was a Principality polling that wasn't known or discussed at the time of the Baronial polling, there may well be some feelings of  "if I had known, I would have chosen differently".
             
            All here are free to choose as they see fit, if and when this issue comes to a formal polling.  Until then, I, for one, would like to see as much polite and open discussion as possible.
             
             
            Signora Beatrice Domenici della Campana, AoA
            --E nobile scrivere quella lettera


             
            -----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.themidla nds.org
            House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefi nis.org
            March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorr ow.org
            KSCA, OP

            (Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesbur g.net)
            SPONSORED LINKS
            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.

            .

          • Kenwrec Wulfe
            To be honest, if I was looking at options of how I wanted my chicken prepared and I found out that steak was also an option and I was not told this, offered
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 3, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              To be honest, if I was looking at options of how I wanted my chicken prepared and I found out that steak was also an option and I was not told this, offered those options as well, I would be disappointed.
               
              Whether this conversation started out with Baronial discussions or not, all options should be brought to the table for all of feast upon...


               
              ----- Original Message ----
              From: "kfinegan@..." <kfinegan@...>
              To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 2:16:03 PM
              Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Principality? No, I think not.

              If I remember correctly, this discussion was prompted by the Lord Mayor's original informal polling of the area to see if people wanted to formalize the Ayreton structure.  The Barony discussion stemmed from this original question.
               
              A discussion of going Principality, if it is seen as having some of the same benefits as going Barony, would seem to me, at least, to be quite germane to the discussion.
               
              I do not believe that we should limit this discussion.  Anyone who is making a choice (Barony or not Barony, Principality or Not  Principality, Barony or Principality or Neither) should have information about _all_ possibilities, and people should be able to discuss the pros and cons of all choices freely.
              For some people, I imagine that the option of having a Midlands Principality (if that is, in fact, a possiblity) for local Royalty and Court and recognition would change their opinion on having an Ayreton Barony for the same purpose. 
               
              Strictly hypothetically, if someone voted for a Barony to have local Royals, and then a year later there was a Principality polling that wasn't known or discussed at the time of the Baronial polling, there may well be some feelings of  "if I had known, I would have chosen differently" .
               
              All here are free to choose as they see fit, if and when this issue comes to a formal polling.  Until then, I, for one, would like to see as much polite and open discussion as possible.
               
               
              Signora Beatrice Domenici della Campana, AoA
              --E nobile scrivere quella lettera


               
              -----Original Message-----
              From: Scribesquire@ comcast.net
              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.themidla nds.org
              House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefi nis.org
              March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorr ow.org
              KSCA, OP

              (Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesbur g.net)
              SPONSORED LINKS
              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.

              .


            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.