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

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

Expand Messages
  • Mike / Kilian
    Thank you, Sir Ix, for making that more clear. -Kilian
    Message 1 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)
    • 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 2 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.