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

Re: [Ayreton] Groups Transition Discussion

Expand Messages
  • kevin purtrell
    The main reason we have so many groups in the area to begin with has to do with travel times. The groups may be close geographically but because of the way
    Message 1 of 29 , Jul 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The main reason we have so many groups in the area to begin with has to do with travel times. The groups may be close geographically but because of the way highways are laid out and traffic patterns. It may take an hour and a half to two hours to drive from, say, Tree-Girt-Sea to Vanished Woods or Ravens Lake depending on the time of day. This is one of the problems we had when we tried rotating fighting practices. People from one end of Ayreton didn't want to go to the other end because their total travel time was longer than fighting practice was.
       
      Kevin Ambrozijwski, speaking for himself, not as an Officer.

      James McAdams <jmcadams@...> wrote:
      ayretontownecryer wrote:

      >We have started to discuss two (well three) transitional options.
      >
      >Barony which has several options. Those groups that wish to join
      >get subsumed into one Barony; One group goes Barony and others
      >attach themselves to it; The groups that wish it join together to
      >create a Shell Barony, keeping their individual identities AND
      >getting to play in a Barony. Barony would include at most all the
      >groups currently in the Area (NOT HOUSEHOLD) of Ayreton and not
      >include any groups outside of it.
      >
      >Principality. This could include just those groups in the Area (NOT
      >HOUSEHOLD) of Ayreton and up to the entire Midlands Region.
      >
      >
      >
      I'm curious - has the idea of extending the Province been rejected
      by the residents of Tree-Girt-Sea, or is there a different reason it was
      striken from the possible courses?

      Xavier



      Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
      Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

    • ayretontownecryer
      Group Distances Yes, the travel time between groups can be long. We currently have activities, practices, events and fighter practices in various areas and
      Message 2 of 29 , Jul 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        Group Distances

        Yes, the travel time between groups can be long.  We currently have activities, practices, events and fighter practices in various areas and some things happening in more than one location such as fighter practices.

        TGS Expansion

        This is the concept that TGS stays a Province and each group becomes a Riding.  The question was asked why wasn't this included in the possibilities.  Short answer is because that is first an internal question to be answered by the defined members of TGS first.  We can't force them to accept the other groups and they can't force the other groups to accept them and to my knowledge noone is trying to do either.

        The Process

        Thanks to The Honorable Lady Sarafina Sinclair.  At the beginning of this discussion I provided the link and the documents for the process of Advancement/Staying the same.   I think this discussion has proven one thing and that it is that people are interested in this question and hold strong opinions.  I hope everyone is now more educated and knowledgeable now as well.  Indeed yes, the next step is to poll your own groups at business meetings.

        My humble suggestion is again that we do not have enough actual knowledge and that getting an/the official kingdom transition officer involved now so that we may garner more and more accurate information so each group may make their own well edcuation decisions.  That said if we do wish as the Ayreton Area to become a Barony with more than just one group those groups will need to communicate their intentions to each other as well.  Bring this up at your business meetings, go with your opinions, stand strong in them but do not attempt to force anyone else to follow your opinion.  If you seem to be the only one talking I recommend to you that others may wish to speak as well and so say your peace and let others as well and well, be peaceful about it.

        Of course the discussion is welcome to continue here as are inquiries and announcements.

        Ian the Green

        Ayreton Towne Cryer

      • grimkirk
        In a belated response to the original question from James McAdams, which I hadn t seen answered directly: I believe the concern about extending the Province
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 16, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          In a belated response to the original question from James McAdams,
          which I hadn't seen answered directly:

          I believe the concern about 'extending the Province' falls directly
          in line with having the Province elevated to Baronial status, and was
          subject to the notion that such a move would presumably offend all
          other participating groups who would be subsumed under a
          new 'Province (or Barony) of TGS'. The current notion as has been
          explained to me (as recently as this evening) is that to go Barony,
          everyone should 'have some skin' in it (liberal paraphrase),
          including TGS.

          --

          <start opinion>
          However, as I see it, TGS would be the only group actually risking
          any 'skin' (status). For every other group in the area, with the
          exception of willingly surrendering their indenpendence, and possibly
          some identity, it would be (in fact) either a lateral transition to
          Canton, or up to full status (from incipient).

          Thusfar, the whole 'move to Barony' status has been proffered (to me)
          principally as a mechanism to increase 'unity' amongst the
          Chicagoland chapters. However, there seems to be nothing in such a
          move that enhances unification of anything other than bank accounts.
          To my mind, there doesn't seem to be anything keeping these groups
          from playing and working together nicely now, so I fail to see how
          collectivizing as Barony would improve that concept.

          Yes, a Baronial structure would permit the implementation of
          local 'pomp and circumstance' by the adoption of local royals, and
          the creation of local awards for recognition of local efforts /
          activities. But these would not seem to be sufficient reasons alone
          to pursue this inequitable transition.

          As I've ever understood it, for the longest time a large part of the
          notion behind TGS being a Province was that the residents held a fair
          amount of disdain for local royalty and the politics that invariably
          follow, no matter how you try to legislate the selection process. I
          mean, look at this very process here. Already, there's been talk
          of 'keeping the baronial hats from both being from the same group'.
          We're supposed to be ascribing to a monarchal structure (ruling from
          the top down, for those who haven't figured that out), and yet
          there's this notion that 'voting' and 'legislating' from the local
          level is an acceptible idea. If that's the case, this whole process
          is doomed from the start. This isn't the 4H-club, folks.

          Also, the collectivizing of geographically disparate groups (which,
          as Kevin already pointed out, was the whole reason that there are
          multiple groups in the Chicagoland area) only places an even greater
          burden upon the collective populace to have to mobilize to even
          greater lengths to participate in the larger unit, especially if
          individual recognition is any part of the premise for transition. To
          presume that the concept that groups should be no closer than one
          hour from each other (formerly '60 miles') is a flawed concept hasn't
          taken a look at gas prices lately, or didn't pay for the car they're
          driving. Kevin's already pointed out that even in the noble group
          of 'Ayreton' that some (many?) don't care to attend another group's
          practice because of the round trip travel times. How is going Barony
          going to change that? In short, it won't.

          I say, if the groups of Chicagoland wish to respect TGS's history and
          acknowledge its prominence as the premier group of the Middle
          Kingdom, and to promote TGS to Baronial status and join it as
          cantons, fine. Else, keep 'Ayreton' just the way it is. A noble
          concept, which, in itself, promotes a communal/regional identity that
          puts no 'official' burden upon anyone.
          <end opinion>

          Just my three cents for the evening.

          -- Grimkirk ap Greymoor
          Former Senschal, Rokkehealdan
          Citizen, Tre-Girt-Sea
          Former Citizen, Barony of the Flame (Louisville, KY)
          Former Citizen, Barony of V'tavia (Wichita, KS),
          Pricipality/Kingdom of Calontir
          Former Citizen, Barony of Caerthe (Denver, CO),
          Principality/Kingdom of Outlands

          --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, kevin purtrell <krpurtell@...> wrote:
          >
          > The main reason we have so many groups in the area to begin with
          has to do with travel times. The groups may be close geographically
          but because of the way highways are laid out and traffic patterns. It
          may take an hour and a half to two hours to drive from, say, Tree-
          Girt-Sea to Vanished Woods or Ravens Lake depending on the time of
          day. This is one of the problems we had when we tried rotating
          fighting practices. People from one end of Ayreton didn't want to go
          to the other end because their total travel time was longer than
          fighting practice was.
          >
          > Kevin Ambrozijwski, speaking for himself, not as an Officer.
          >
          > James McAdams <jmcadams@...> wrote:
          > ayretontownecryer wrote:
          >
          > >We have started to discuss two (well three) transitional options.
          > >
          > >Barony which has several options. Those groups that wish to join
          > >get subsumed into one Barony; One group goes Barony and others
          > >attach themselves to it; The groups that wish it join together to
          > >create a Shell Barony, keeping their individual identities AND
          > >getting to play in a Barony. Barony would include at most all the
          > >groups currently in the Area (NOT HOUSEHOLD) of Ayreton and not
          > >include any groups outside of it.
          > >
          > >Principality. This could include just those groups in the Area
          (NOT
          > >HOUSEHOLD) of Ayreton and up to the entire Midlands Region.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > I'm curious - has the idea of extending the Province been rejected
          > by the residents of Tree-Girt-Sea, or is there a different reason
          it was
          > striken from the possible courses?
          >
          > Xavier
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
          > Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
          >
        • David Roland
          The Province of TGS voted and Announced themselves to be overwhelmingly in favor of transitioning themselves to Canton status in favor of an overarching Barony
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            The Province of TGS voted and Announced themselves to be
            overwhelmingly in favor of transitioning themselves to Canton status
            in favor of an overarching Barony that would include many groups of
            Ayreton. I believe the vote was announced 15 for and 2 against.
            The archives certainly have the announcement in them if you and
            others wish to locate the announcement.

            Ian the Green

            --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "grimkirk" <grimkirk@...> wrote:
            >
            > In a belated response to the original question from James McAdams,
            > which I hadn't seen answered directly:
            >
            > I believe the concern about 'extending the Province' falls
            directly
            > in line with having the Province elevated to Baronial status, and
            was
            > subject to the notion that such a move would presumably offend all
            > other participating groups who would be subsumed under a
            > new 'Province (or Barony) of TGS'. The current notion as has been
            > explained to me (as recently as this evening) is that to go
            Barony,
            > everyone should 'have some skin' in it (liberal paraphrase),
            > including TGS.
            >
            > --
            >
            > <start opinion>
            > However, as I see it, TGS would be the only group actually risking
            > any 'skin' (status). For every other group in the area, with the
            > exception of willingly surrendering their indenpendence, and
            possibly
            > some identity, it would be (in fact) either a lateral transition
            to
            > Canton, or up to full status (from incipient).
            >
            > Thusfar, the whole 'move to Barony' status has been proffered (to
            me)
            > principally as a mechanism to increase 'unity' amongst the
            > Chicagoland chapters. However, there seems to be nothing in such a
            > move that enhances unification of anything other than bank
            accounts.
            > To my mind, there doesn't seem to be anything keeping these groups
            > from playing and working together nicely now, so I fail to see how
            > collectivizing as Barony would improve that concept.
            >
            > Yes, a Baronial structure would permit the implementation of
            > local 'pomp and circumstance' by the adoption of local royals, and
            > the creation of local awards for recognition of local efforts /
            > activities. But these would not seem to be sufficient reasons
            alone
            > to pursue this inequitable transition.
            >
            > As I've ever understood it, for the longest time a large part of
            the
            > notion behind TGS being a Province was that the residents held a
            fair
            > amount of disdain for local royalty and the politics that
            invariably
            > follow, no matter how you try to legislate the selection process.
            I
            > mean, look at this very process here. Already, there's been talk
            > of 'keeping the baronial hats from both being from the same
            group'.
            > We're supposed to be ascribing to a monarchal structure (ruling
            from
            > the top down, for those who haven't figured that out), and yet
            > there's this notion that 'voting' and 'legislating' from the local
            > level is an acceptible idea. If that's the case, this whole
            process
            > is doomed from the start. This isn't the 4H-club, folks.
            >
            > Also, the collectivizing of geographically disparate groups
            (which,
            > as Kevin already pointed out, was the whole reason that there are
            > multiple groups in the Chicagoland area) only places an even
            greater
            > burden upon the collective populace to have to mobilize to even
            > greater lengths to participate in the larger unit, especially if
            > individual recognition is any part of the premise for transition.
            To
            > presume that the concept that groups should be no closer than one
            > hour from each other (formerly '60 miles') is a flawed concept
            hasn't
            > taken a look at gas prices lately, or didn't pay for the car
            they're
            > driving. Kevin's already pointed out that even in the noble group
            > of 'Ayreton' that some (many?) don't care to attend another
            group's
            > practice because of the round trip travel times. How is going
            Barony
            > going to change that? In short, it won't.
            >
            > I say, if the groups of Chicagoland wish to respect TGS's history
            and
            > acknowledge its prominence as the premier group of the Middle
            > Kingdom, and to promote TGS to Baronial status and join it as
            > cantons, fine. Else, keep 'Ayreton' just the way it is. A noble
            > concept, which, in itself, promotes a communal/regional identity
            that
            > puts no 'official' burden upon anyone.
            > <end opinion>
            >
            > Just my three cents for the evening.
            >
            > -- Grimkirk ap Greymoor
            > Former Senschal, Rokkehealdan
            > Citizen, Tre-Girt-Sea
            > Former Citizen, Barony of the Flame (Louisville, KY)
            > Former Citizen, Barony of V'tavia (Wichita, KS),
            > Pricipality/Kingdom of Calontir
            > Former Citizen, Barony of Caerthe (Denver, CO),
            > Principality/Kingdom of Outlands
            >
            > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, kevin purtrell <krpurtell@> wrote:
            > >
            > > The main reason we have so many groups in the area to begin with
            > has to do with travel times. The groups may be close
            geographically
            > but because of the way highways are laid out and traffic patterns.
            It
            > may take an hour and a half to two hours to drive from, say, Tree-
            > Girt-Sea to Vanished Woods or Ravens Lake depending on the time of
            > day. This is one of the problems we had when we tried rotating
            > fighting practices. People from one end of Ayreton didn't want to
            go
            > to the other end because their total travel time was longer than
            > fighting practice was.
            > >
            > > Kevin Ambrozijwski, speaking for himself, not as an Officer.
            > >
            > > James McAdams <jmcadams@> wrote:
            > > ayretontownecryer wrote:
            > >
            > > >We have started to discuss two (well three) transitional
            options.
            > > >
            > > >Barony which has several options. Those groups that wish to
            join
            > > >get subsumed into one Barony; One group goes Barony and others
            > > >attach themselves to it; The groups that wish it join together
            to
            > > >create a Shell Barony, keeping their individual identities AND
            > > >getting to play in a Barony. Barony would include at most all
            the
            > > >groups currently in the Area (NOT HOUSEHOLD) of Ayreton and not
            > > >include any groups outside of it.
            > > >
            > > >Principality. This could include just those groups in the Area
            > (NOT
            > > >HOUSEHOLD) of Ayreton and up to the entire Midlands Region.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > I'm curious - has the idea of extending the Province been
            rejected
            > > by the residents of Tree-Girt-Sea, or is there a different
            reason
            > it was
            > > striken from the possible courses?
            > >
            > > Xavier
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ---------------------------------
            > > Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
            > > Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
            > >
            >
          • Drew Nicholson
            ... This is simply not true. and you should stop pushing this story. In fact, it was only members of the Province of Tree Girt Sea who were PRESENT at the
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On 9/17/07, David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > The Province of TGS voted and Announced themselves to be
              > overwhelmingly in favor of transitioning themselves to Canton status
              > in favor of an overarching Barony that would include many groups of
              > Ayreton. I believe the vote was announced 15 for and 2 against.
              > The archives certainly have the announcement in them if you and
              > others wish to locate the announcement.
              >
              > Ian the Green

              This is simply not true. and you should stop pushing this story.

              In fact, it was only members of the Province of Tree Girt Sea who were
              PRESENT at the meeting -- less than 20 people -- voted. By far, the
              VAST majority of the Province who were not present did not vote, and
              you may therefore NOT attribute favorable opinions to them.

              In any transition, the entire population of the Province would be
              officially polled, and there could possibly even be a viability
              threshold required to meet before any votes in favor or against would
              even be counted.

              Do not put words into other people's mouths, and do not count your
              chickens before they are hatched. You did it before you stepped down
              as "Areyton Cryer" and you're doing it now.


              A
              --
              Qui Tacet Consentit
            • Scribesquire@comcast.net
              Everyone is entitled to thier opinion. However, I woudld suggest that everyone read thier email before sending it. If you think it could even vaguely be taken
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Everyone is entitled to thier opinion. However, I woudld suggest that everyone read thier email before sending it.  If you think it could even vaguely be taken as insulting, reword it or do not send it.
                 
                Any spirit of cooperation will lose ground if insults or rudeness begin clogging up everyones inbox.
                 
                Henry of Exeter
                 
                -------------- Original message --------------
                From: "Drew Nicholson" <drewishdrewid@...>

                On 9/17/07, David Roland <mystborne@yahoo. com> wrote:
                >
                >
                > The Province of TGS voted and Announced themselves to be
                > overwhelmingly in favor of transitioning themselves to Canton status
                > in favor of an overarching Barony that would include many groups of
                > Ayreton. I believe the vote was announced 15 for and 2 against.
                > The archives certainly have the announcement in them if you and
                > others wish to locate the announcement.
                >
                > Ian the Green

                This is simply not true. and you should stop pushing this story.

                In fact, it was only members of the Province of Tree Girt Sea who were
                PRESENT at the meeting -- less than 20 people -- voted. By far, the
                VAST majority of the Province who were not present did not vote, and
                you may therefore NOT attribute favorable opinions to them.

                In any transition, the entire population of the Province would be< BR>officially polled, and there could possibly even be a viability
                threshold required to meet before any votes in favor or against would
                even be counted.

                Do not put words into other people's mouths, and do not count your
                chickens before they are hatched. You did it before you stepped down
                as "Areyton Cryer" and you're doing it now.

                A
                --
                Qui Tacet Consentit

              • Drew Nicholson
                ... Truth does not take a backseat to politeness. There are people opposed to this idea. Cooperation is not necessarily their goal. Opposition is. If I
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 9/17/07, Scribesquire@... <Scribesquire@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Everyone is entitled to thier opinion. However, I woudld suggest that everyone read thier email before sending it. If you think it could even vaguely be taken as insulting, reword it or do not send it.
                  >
                  > Any spirit of cooperation will lose ground if insults or rudeness begin clogging up everyones inbox.
                  >

                  Truth does not take a backseat to politeness.

                  There are people opposed to this idea. Cooperation is not necessarily
                  their goal. Opposition is. If I intend an email to be insulting --
                  and this one was clearly not -- you would know it.


                  A
                  --
                  Qui Tacet Consentit
                • grimkirk
                  With Henry s recent sound advice in mind, and noting that this response has been in progress prior to the last few posts: Nadezda wrote on July 19th: Of 18
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    With Henry's recent sound advice in mind, and noting that this
                    response has been in progress prior to the last few posts:

                    Nadezda wrote on July 19th:
                    "Of 18 attendees, 15 were willing to make the shift to a Canton to
                    promote regional unity. Another 2 weighed in as being in favor by
                    proxy, and one more abstained."

                    Yes, I read Nadezda's post as well, yet I fail to see your point.
                    While there are a few discrepancies with those numbers (undocumented
                    dissent), and I was not in attendance, so there does not seem to be
                    enough to change their general indication at this time. Regardless,
                    your perception that the group was overwhelmingly in favor of being
                    demoted to Canton hardly negates my opinion or historical
                    observations. I suggest (as does Lord Andrew) that the opinions of
                    those present were simply a sample of the mood du jour of those who
                    were present; hardly authoritative. Or does everyone actually think
                    that TGS only has a population of 18-20 people. Or that those who
                    were not in attendance have no opinion (or are not entitled to
                    express it)? For a group ostensibly the size of a Province, I'd think
                    even the Kingdom would find such numbers suspect. And trust me, they
                    will look deeper.

                    You are invited to counter dissent with well reasoned argument.
                    However, I strongly suggest you not discount dissent on suspect
                    numbers alone (even if they are in the minority), lest some get it
                    into their heads that the SCA is something resembling a democracy. It
                    is not. The SCA's storied existance indicates that such dissent can
                    be sufficient to derail even the most well intentioned of endeavors.
                    And being blinded by entusiasm over EARLY 'test results' will
                    certainly prove a more effective foil than any argument I can make.

                    However, as you can see from Nadezda's numbers, there is nothing
                    indicating any 'dissent', which is why I'm sure you interpreted them
                    as 'overwhelming'. For the record, Nadezda informed me just last
                    night that had I been present at that meeting, I would not have been
                    alone in my dissent. Also, 'willing to shift' is hardly 'in favor
                    of'. I'm guessing, but I suspect Nadezda most likely felt it was only
                    important to communicate the general outcome (a relatively harmless
                    oversight). Clearly I disagree, as it would seem equally important
                    for the degree of dissention to be made known as well. Of course,
                    your personal mileage may vary. However, I'm sure the Kingdom will
                    want to know those numbers as well, should this endeavor even get
                    that far.

                    And none of this really counters anything I said previously. It is
                    simply my wish to permit everyone to make more informed decisions
                    when the time comes.

                    -- Grimkirk ap Greymoor
                    Province of Tre-Girt-Sea

                    --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "David Roland" <mystborne@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > The Province of TGS voted and Announced themselves to be
                    > overwhelmingly in favor of transitioning themselves to Canton
                    > status in favor of an overarching Barony that would include many
                    > groups of Ayreton. I believe the vote was announced 15 for and
                    > 2 against. The archives certainly have the announcement in them
                    > if you and others wish to locate the announcement.
                    >
                    > Ian the Green
                  • David Roland
                    Purple, I am still the Ayreton Towne Cryer, and I have a deputy, please make sure to have your facts correct. The official vote for the Province was taken at a
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Purple,

                      I am still the Ayreton Towne Cryer, and I have a deputy, please make
                      sure to have your facts correct.

                      The official vote for the Province was taken at a TGS business
                      meeting and the Seneschal posted the results of same.

                      Message can be found at:

                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ayreton/message/1349

                      The body of the message is:

                      "As was suggested during the town meeting at Border Skirmish,
                      Tree-Girt-Sea discussed the aspect of what an shell barony would mean
                      to us during our recent moot. As was pointed out during the town
                      meeting, being a Province currently, Tree-Girt-Sea would be most
                      impacted by a status change. Of 18 attendees, 15 were willing to make
                      the shift to a Canton to promote regional unity. Another 2 weighed in
                      as being in favor by proxy, and one more abstained.

                      -Nadezda
                      TGS Seneschal"

                      It is and was my understanding that this was and is an official vote
                      conducted as official business of the Province of Tree Girt Sea and
                      I have done nothing more than report same. I do know that this
                      meeting and the discussion of the meeting was published well in
                      advance through the normal means of doing so in the Province and so
                      everyone who wished to be aware of the meeting was. Those who chose
                      to attend did. It is this post that I was refering to and
                      referencing as official business already announced on the list by
                      the Provinve of Tree Girt Sea's Seneschal. Not personal opinion.

                      The polling will reveal what the polling will reveal should the area
                      get to the point of polling. No chickens were counted before they
                      were hatched by myself.

                      As the Ayreton Towne Cryer I try very hard to maintain my personal
                      opinion as seperate from my work as the Ayreton Towne Cryer. In
                      that position a "favorable opinion voiced" is one that is respectful
                      of all on the list including the person directly addressed, phased
                      thoughtfully and when discussing facts can cite the source and
                      quotes them correctly.

                      Further, Purple, you are making a personal attack and as such are
                      violating the rules of this list. In this case the attack is on
                      myself one of the owners and moderators of the list by directly
                      calling me a liar and putting words in others mouths because I
                      simply reported a fact.

                      As I am intimately involved with this violation of the rules, and in
                      an effort to maintain my neutrality as the Ayreton Towne Cryer, one
                      of the owners and moderators of this list, I shall be handing off
                      the decision of how to handle this infraction to the other
                      moderators/owners of this list.

                      Ian the Green
                      Ayreton Towne Cryer


                      --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Nicholson" <drewishdrewid@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > On 9/17/07, David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > The Province of TGS voted and Announced themselves to be
                      > > overwhelmingly in favor of transitioning themselves to Canton
                      status
                      > > in favor of an overarching Barony that would include many
                      groups of
                      > > Ayreton. I believe the vote was announced 15 for and 2 against.
                      > > The archives certainly have the announcement in them if you and
                      > > others wish to locate the announcement.
                      > >
                      > > Ian the Green
                      >
                      > This is simply not true. and you should stop pushing this story.
                      >
                      > In fact, it was only members of the Province of Tree Girt Sea who
                      were
                      > PRESENT at the meeting -- less than 20 people -- voted. By far,
                      the
                      > VAST majority of the Province who were not present did not vote,
                      and
                      > you may therefore NOT attribute favorable opinions to them.
                      >
                      > In any transition, the entire population of the Province would be
                      > officially polled, and there could possibly even be a viability
                      > threshold required to meet before any votes in favor or against
                      would
                      > even be counted.
                      >
                      > Do not put words into other people's mouths, and do not count your
                      > chickens before they are hatched. You did it before you stepped
                      down
                      > as "Areyton Cryer" and you're doing it now.
                      >
                      >
                      > A
                      > --
                      > Qui Tacet Consentit
                      >
                    • Scribesquire@comcast.net
                      Responded to privately. Henry of Exeter ... From: Drew Nicholson ... Truth does not take a backseat to politeness. There are people
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Responded to privately.
                         
                        Henry of Exeter
                         
                        -------------- Original message --------------
                        From: "Drew Nicholson" <drewishdrewid@...>

                        On 9/17/07, Scribesquire@ comcast.net <Scribesquire@ comcast.net> wrote:
                        >
                        > Everyone is entitled to thier opinion. However, I woudld suggest that everyone read thier email before sending it. If you think it could even vaguely be taken as insulting, reword it or do not send it.
                        >
                        > Any spirit of cooperation will lose ground if insults or rudeness begin clogging up everyones inbox.
                        >

                        Truth does not take a backseat to politeness.

                        There are people opposed to this idea. Cooperation is not necessarily
                        their goal. Opposition is. If I intend an email to be insulting --
                        and this one was clearly not -- you would know it.

                        A
                        --
                        Qui Tacet Consentit

                      • Philippa of Otterbourne
                        ... I agree truth is important but it can be conveyed tactfully and politely without taking a backseat. Perhaps your intention wasn t to be insulting but it
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 9/17/07, Drew Nicholson <drewishdrewid@...> wrote:
                          On 9/17/07, Scribesquire@... < Scribesquire@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Everyone is entitled to thier opinion. However, I woudld suggest that everyone read thier email before sending it.  If you think it could even vaguely be taken as insulting, reword it or do not send it.
                          >
                          > Any spirit of cooperation will lose ground if insults or rudeness begin clogging up everyones inbox.
                          >

                          >Truth does not take a backseat to politeness.
                           
                           
                          I agree truth is important but it can be conveyed tactfully and politely without taking a backseat.  Perhaps your intention wasn't to be insulting but it wasn't perceived as such by me and apparently others.  I do hope we don't actually find out when your intent IS to insult if your recent response was not meant to.

                          There are people opposed to this idea.  Cooperation is not necessarily
                          their goal.  Opposition is.  If I intend an email to be insulting --
                          and this one was clearly not -- you would know it.
                           
                          I think there is alot of support for this idea, as well as opposition.  I think everyone is well aware that the groups would have to be officially polled in order to become a barony.  My understanding is that these votes being done at the groups business meetings are just a way to determine if there is enough support to move forward or not.  If the TGS vote was taken at at time when only 20 people could be there (which sounds like a good turnout for most business meetings although I'm involved with a smaller group) then either the official polling will show the lack of support or perhaps you might want to consider a group poll through email?
                           
                          I just think by turning on each other, we serve no purpose to either derail the process or continue it.  It merely creates dissention among members and indicates that despite recent measures we really can't even try to work together. 
                           
                          Again, if the individual groups decide to proceed with the idea of a Barony, it's not going to happen if there is enough opposition at the time of official polling.  However, we won't get anywhere without proceeding to that stage.  We'll remain in limbo with the idea of a barony popping up every few years. At least if groups decide to proceed, we can either end the idea based on the polling indicating there's not enough support or by going forward because there is enough.
                           
                          We can still accomplish things (opposition and support) by not turning it personal. 
                           
                          YIS,
                           
                          Philippa of Otterbourne
                          Chatelaine, Shire of Rokkehealden
                           
                           
                           

                           
                        • nadezda_zezastrizl
                          Last I checked 15 from 18 left 3. I didn t feel I needed to explain that those 3 were dissenters, as I felt that was rather obvious. I noted the proxies
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Last I checked 15 from 18 left 3. I didn't feel I needed to explain
                            that those 3 were dissenters, as I felt that was rather obvious.
                            I noted the proxies separately, in part to show that I was attempting
                            to hear all those expressing a concern about the Province's future.
                            As for those who didn't show up for that meeting or didn't weigh in, I
                            can only assume they had no opinion, or at least trusted those who did
                            show up to weigh in for them. There's not much else I can do.
                            -Nadezda
                          • John Adams
                            Nope, you re right. Not much you can do about no shows. ;) -- G ... From: nadezda_zezastrizl To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com Sent:
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Nope, you're right. Not much you can do about no shows. ;)

                              -- G

                              ----- Original Message ----
                              From: nadezda_zezastrizl <nadezda_z@...>
                              To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:47:11 AM
                              Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Groups Transition Discussion


                              Last I checked 15 from 18 left 3. I didn't feel I needed to explain
                              that those 3 were dissenters, as I felt that was rather obvious.
                              I noted the proxies separately, in part to show that I was attempting
                              to hear all those expressing a concern about the Province's future.
                              As for those who didn't show up for that meeting or didn't weigh in, I
                              can only assume they had no opinion, or at least trusted those who did
                              show up to weigh in for them. There's not much else I can do.
                              -Nadezda



                              ____________________________________________________________________________________
                              Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
                              http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
                            • spdesroches@att.net
                              A couple of points First, the vote taken at that meeting was a preliminary one necessary to decide on whether or not to proceed. This was also done at Grey
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment

                                A couple of points

                                 

                                First, the vote taken at that meeting was a preliminary one necessary to decide on whether or not to proceed. This was also done at Grey Gargoyles, with discussion amongst those who attended. The results had a similar outcome and percentage ratio in the voting of those who attended, namely overwhelmingly in favor of proceeding with the joining into a shell barony.

                                      The process requires initial public discussion on a face-to-face basis by those who care to attend a business meeting. Democracy and progress require attendance and actual participation, not just media screed. If you want a viable working opinion, get to your group's business meeting and vote.

                                     Second, our size is no real or mature barrier to the creation, administration or participation in a viable shell barony. Inspiration and dedication to excellence in one's crafts makes our local distances something which can be overcome, if not irrelevant. Many of us attend local events and practices just fine. Our Kingdom works just fine, too, distances or not. The individual can decide on whether or not to participate. It doesn't mean that the individual shouldn't have the chance to make their own decisions.

                                     Third, administration of monies remains a separate entity for each of the smaller groups. Each will have their own Seneschal, Exchequer, Puirsuivant and either Marshall or MoAS, according to Kingdom Law XIV-200. Individual cantons can still determine their own events, practices, and distribution of monies. A barony is a seperate entity with its own officers and bank account. No canton is required to give money to the barony. 

                                     Our efforts toward this entity in this kingdom is not the first. The recent formation of the shell barony of Brendoken in east Ohio has helped pave the way for others here. It works for them so far.

                                 

                                A reminder to all. Keep this list civilized, play nice and keep it to the facts. 

                                 

                                My Opinions Along with a lot of Facts

                                 

                                THL Etienne le Couteau des Roches

                                Puirsuivant, Grey Gargoyles

                                Former Seneschal, Grey Gargoyles

                                and a lot of cookies and former citizenships in and out of our kingdom

                                 

                                 

                                ------------- Original message from "Drew Nicholson" <drewishdrewid@...>: --------------

                                On 9/17/07, David Roland <mystborne@yahoo. com> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > The Province of TGS voted and Announced themselves to be
                                > overwhelmingly in favor of transitioning themselves to Canton status
                                > in favor of an overarching Barony that would include many groups of
                                > Ayreton. I believe the vote was announced 15 for and 2 against.
                                > The archives certainly have the announcement in them if you and
                                > others wish to locate the announcement.
                                >
                                > Ian the Green

                                This is simply not true. and you should stop pushing this story.

                                In fact, it was only members of the Province of Tree Girt Sea who were
                                PRESENT at the meeting -- less than 20 people -- voted. By far, the
                                VAST majority of the Province who were not present did not vote, and
                                you may therefore NOT attribute favorable opinions to them.

                                In any transition, the entire population of the Province would be< BR>officially polled, and there could possibly even be a viability
                                threshold required to meet before any votes in favor or against would
                                even be counted.

                                Do not put words into other people's mouths, and do not count your
                                chickens before they are hatched. You did it before you stepped down
                                as "Areyton Cryer" and you're doing it now.

                                A
                                --
                                Qui Tacet Consentit

                              • auldefarte
                                Well said. And since Brendoaken was mentioned today, I ll point out that it took them seven years from start to (tenuous) finish, and even then not all of the
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 17, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Well said. And since Brendoaken was mentioned today, I'll point out
                                  that it took them seven years from start to (tenuous) finish, and
                                  even then not all of the groups that started out in the discussion
                                  wound up in the final product.

                                  -- Grimkirk

                                  --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "Philippa of Otterbourne"
                                  <otterbourne@...> wrote:
                                  > Again, if the individual groups decide to proceed with the idea of
                                  > a Barony, it's not going to happen if there is enough opposition at
                                  > the time of official polling. However, we won't get anywhere
                                  > without proceeding to that stage. We'll remain in limbo with the
                                  > idea of a barony popping up every few years. At least if groups
                                  > decide to proceed, we can either end the idea based on the polling
                                  > indicating there's not enough support or by going forward because
                                  > there is enough.
                                  >
                                  > We can still accomplish things (opposition and support) by not
                                  > turning it personal.
                                  >
                                  > YIS,
                                  >
                                  > Philippa of Otterbourne
                                  > Chatelaine, Shire of Rokkehealden
                                • kateslists@comcast.net
                                  ... IMHO, Politeness does not and should not take a backseat to truth. IMHO, the SCA ideals include Chivalry and Courtesy. Politeness is a inherant to
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 18, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                     
                                    On 9/17/07, Purple wrote:
                                    >  Truth does not take a backseat to politeness.
                                    IMHO, Politeness does not and should not take a backseat to truth.
                                     
                                    IMHO, the SCA ideals include Chivalry and Courtesy.  Politeness is a inherant to Courtesy.
                                     
                                    Apparently, you're mileage varies. 
                                     
                                    Bojei
                                  • Tom Scrip
                                    We all know that there are more people on the book s then show up for a TGS meeting. Most of them play with other groups in the area, Groups that have there
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 18, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      We all know that there are more people on the book's then show up for
                                      a TGS meeting. Most of them play with other groups in the area,
                                      Groups that have there own opinion about a Barony in this area and
                                      how it should be formed. IF they are putting in their two cents in
                                      the another group why do they have to put it in aging over here? (I
                                      know it's the Chicago way to vote early and offen)

                                      The suggestion that Nadezda is trying to hide a out come of a poll,
                                      vote, or a question brought forth to the group (or what ever you want
                                      to call it) When a simpel subtraction would tell you the answere (I
                                      may not know how to spell but I can count). Is a kin to questioning
                                      her honor. And besides me, I'm sure that there are a few our Brothers
                                      that would also stand to defend it.

                                      Aethelwulf of Dover



                                      --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "grimkirk" <grimkirk@...> wrote:
                                      snip
                                      > Nadezda wrote on July 19th:
                                      > "Of 18 attendees, 15 were willing to make the shift to a Canton to
                                      > promote regional unity. Another 2 weighed in as being in favor by
                                      > proxy, and one more abstained."
                                      >
                                      > Yes, I read Nadezda's post as well, yet I fail to see your point.
                                      > While there are a few discrepancies with those numbers
                                      (undocumented
                                      > dissent), and I was not in attendance, so there does not seem to be
                                      > enough to change their general indication at this time. Regardless,
                                      > your perception that the group was overwhelmingly in favor of being
                                      > demoted to Canton hardly negates my opinion or historical
                                      > observations. I suggest (as does Lord Andrew) that the opinions of
                                      > those present were simply a sample of the mood du jour of those who
                                      > were present; hardly authoritative. Or does everyone actually think
                                      > that TGS only has a population of 18-20 people. Or that those who
                                      > were not in attendance have no opinion (or are not entitled to
                                      > express it)? For a group ostensibly the size of a Province, I'd
                                      think
                                      > even the Kingdom would find such numbers suspect. And trust me,
                                      they
                                      > will look deeper.
                                      >
                                      > You are invited to counter dissent with well reasoned argument.
                                      > However, I strongly suggest you not discount dissent on suspect
                                      > numbers alone (even if they are in the minority), lest some get it
                                      > into their heads that the SCA is something resembling a democracy.
                                      It
                                      > is not. The SCA's storied existance indicates that such dissent can
                                      > be sufficient to derail even the most well intentioned of
                                      endeavors.
                                      > And being blinded by entusiasm over EARLY 'test results' will
                                      > certainly prove a more effective foil than any argument I can make.
                                      >
                                      > However, as you can see from Nadezda's numbers, there is nothing
                                      > indicating any 'dissent', which is why I'm sure you interpreted
                                      them
                                      > as 'overwhelming'. For the record, Nadezda informed me just last
                                      > night that had I been present at that meeting, I would not have
                                      been
                                      > alone in my dissent. Also, 'willing to shift' is hardly 'in favor
                                      > of'. I'm guessing, but I suspect Nadezda most likely felt it was
                                      only
                                      > important to communicate the general outcome (a relatively harmless
                                      > oversight). Clearly I disagree, as it would seem equally important
                                      > for the degree of dissention to be made known as well. Of course,
                                      > your personal mileage may vary. However, I'm sure the Kingdom will
                                      > want to know those numbers as well, should this endeavor even get
                                      > that far.
                                      >
                                      > And none of this really counters anything I said previously. It is
                                      > simply my wish to permit everyone to make more informed decisions
                                      > when the time comes.
                                      >
                                      > -- Grimkirk ap Greymoor
                                      > Province of Tre-Girt-Sea
                                      >
                                      > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "David Roland" <mystborne@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > The Province of TGS voted and Announced themselves to be
                                      > > overwhelmingly in favor of transitioning themselves to Canton
                                      > > status in favor of an overarching Barony that would include many
                                      > > groups of Ayreton. I believe the vote was announced 15 for and
                                      > > 2 against. The archives certainly have the announcement in them
                                      > > if you and others wish to locate the announcement.
                                      > >
                                      > > Ian the Green
                                      >
                                    • Christian Fournier
                                      ... Grey Gargoyles, at least, raised that issue well before the vote meeting, and decided that anyone could consider themselves a Gargoyle and thus vote
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 18, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > We all know that there are more people on the book's then show up for
                                        > a TGS meeting. Most of them play with other groups in the area,
                                        > Groups that have there own opinion about a Barony in this area and
                                        > how it should be formed. IF they are putting in their two cents in
                                        > the another group why do they have to put it in aging over here? (I
                                        > know it's the Chicago way to vote early and offen)

                                        Grey Gargoyles, at least, raised that issue well before the "vote"
                                        meeting, and decided that anyone could consider themselves a Gargoyle
                                        and thus vote there, UNLESS they had already voted with another
                                        group. Further, anyone who votes at the Gargoyles' meeting is
                                        expected not to vote at any other group thereafter.

                                        It should be pretty clear, whichever side you favor: no double
                                        dipping...

                                        For my part, I've held two offices in Grey Gargoyles, though I've
                                        always lived in Tree-Girt-Sea. Lately, I've been going to TGS
                                        meetings, instead of GG meetings, so I voted at TGS.

                                        Christian Fournier
                                      • auldefarte
                                        Apologies to the list: Wulf, Its really sad that I must respond to this, since I m really getting tired of having to defend or explain myself (and my very
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 18, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Apologies to the list:

                                          Wulf,

                                          Its really sad that I must respond to this, since I'm really getting
                                          tired of having to defend or explain myself (and my very presence) to
                                          you. In short: I'm back. Please find a way to get over it.

                                          I've already had a private e-mail exchange with with Merrill about
                                          this, explaining that my comments on the Ayreton list were not meant
                                          as a personal attack in any way, and received a pleasant response.
                                          And had you read the actual posted comments, you'd see I also
                                          indicated that I perceived no malice on Merrill's part in any way.

                                          Perhaps you might check with her before looking for fault where there
                                          is none.

                                          -- Grimkirk

                                          --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Scrip" <tomscrip@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > We all know that there are more people on the book's then show up
                                          > for a TGS meeting. Most of them play with other groups in the area,
                                          > Groups that have there own opinion about a Barony in this area and
                                          > how it should be formed. IF they are putting in their two cents in
                                          > the another group why do they have to put it in aging over here? (I
                                          > know it's the Chicago way to vote early and offen)
                                          >
                                          > The suggestion that Nadezda is trying to hide a out come of a poll,
                                          > vote, or a question brought forth to the group (or what ever you
                                          > want to call it) When a simpel subtraction would tell you the
                                          > answere (I may not know how to spell but I can count). Is a kin to
                                          > questioning her honor. And besides me, I'm sure that there are a
                                          > few our Brothers that would also stand to defend it.
                                          >
                                          > Aethelwulf of Dover
                                        • David Roland
                                          Responded to Privately Ian ... getting ... to ... meant ... there ... area, ... and ... in ... (I ... poll, ... to
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Sep 18, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Responded to Privately

                                            Ian

                                            --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "auldefarte" <auldefarte@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Apologies to the list:
                                            >
                                            > Wulf,
                                            >
                                            > Its really sad that I must respond to this, since I'm really
                                            getting
                                            > tired of having to defend or explain myself (and my very presence)
                                            to
                                            > you. In short: I'm back. Please find a way to get over it.
                                            >
                                            > I've already had a private e-mail exchange with with Merrill about
                                            > this, explaining that my comments on the Ayreton list were not
                                            meant
                                            > as a personal attack in any way, and received a pleasant response.
                                            > And had you read the actual posted comments, you'd see I also
                                            > indicated that I perceived no malice on Merrill's part in any way.
                                            >
                                            > Perhaps you might check with her before looking for fault where
                                            there
                                            > is none.
                                            >
                                            > -- Grimkirk
                                            >
                                            > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Scrip" <tomscrip@> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > We all know that there are more people on the book's then show up
                                            > > for a TGS meeting. Most of them play with other groups in the
                                            area,
                                            > > Groups that have there own opinion about a Barony in this area
                                            and
                                            > > how it should be formed. IF they are putting in their two cents
                                            in
                                            > > the another group why do they have to put it in aging over here?
                                            (I
                                            > > know it's the Chicago way to vote early and offen)
                                            > >
                                            > > The suggestion that Nadezda is trying to hide a out come of a
                                            poll,
                                            > > vote, or a question brought forth to the group (or what ever you
                                            > > want to call it) When a simpel subtraction would tell you the
                                            > > answere (I may not know how to spell but I can count). Is a kin
                                            to
                                            > > questioning her honor. And besides me, I'm sure that there are a
                                            > > few our Brothers that would also stand to defend it.
                                            > >
                                            > > Aethelwulf of Dover
                                            >
                                          • auldefarte
                                            Also Responded to Privately - Grimkirk :)
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 18, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Also Responded to Privately

                                              - Grimkirk :)

                                              --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "David Roland" <mystborne@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Responded to Privately
                                              >
                                              > Ian
                                              >
                                              > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "auldefarte" <auldefarte@> wrote:
                                              > > Apologies to the list:
                                            • kevin purtrell
                                              Dear Pan Grimkirk, Wulf is overly protective of his spouse. I am overly protective of Phebe. Master Hal is overly protective of Mistress Juliana. Andrew
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 18, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dear Pan Grimkirk,
                                                 
                                                Wulf is overly protective of his spouse.
                                                I am overly protective of Phebe.
                                                Master Hal is overly protective of Mistress Juliana.
                                                Andrew McBaine is still overly protective of Sorcha.
                                                Master Robyyan may very well be overly protective of  Sir Fern, but as he writes the software my library uses I don't even want ot go there.
                                                 
                                                Sorry you didn't get the memo. ;)
                                                 
                                                Kevin Ambrozijwski

                                                auldefarte <auldefarte@...> wrote:
                                                Apologies to the list:

                                                Wulf,

                                                Its really sad that I must respond to this, since I'm really getting
                                                tired of having to defend or explain myself (and my very presence) to
                                                you. In short: I'm back. Please find a way to get over it.

                                                I've already had a private e-mail exchange with with Merrill about
                                                this, explaining that my comments on the Ayreton list were not meant
                                                as a personal attack in any way, and received a pleasant response.
                                                And had you read the actual posted comments, you'd see I also
                                                indicated that I perceived no malice on Merrill's part in any way.

                                                Perhaps you might check with her before looking for fault where there
                                                is none.

                                                -- Grimkirk

                                                --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups .com, "Tom Scrip" <tomscrip@.. .> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > We all know that there are more people on the book's then show up
                                                > for a TGS meeting. Most of them play with other groups in the area,
                                                > Groups that have there own opinion about a Barony in this area and
                                                > how it should be formed. IF they are putting in their two cents in
                                                > the another group why do they have to put it in aging over here? (I
                                                > know it's the Chicago way to vote early and offen)
                                                >
                                                > The suggestion that Nadezda is trying to hide a out come of a poll,
                                                > vote, or a question brought forth to the group (or what ever you
                                                > want to call it) When a simpel subtraction would tell you the
                                                > answere (I may not know how to spell but I can count). Is a kin to
                                                > questioning her honor. And besides me, I'm sure that there are a
                                                > few our Brothers that would also stand to defend it.
                                                >
                                                > Aethelwulf of Dover



                                                Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.

                                              • Tom Scrip
                                                What can I say, I m just an un trained attack dog. :) wulf ... as he writes the software my library uses I don t even want ot go there.
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 18, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  What can I say, I'm just an un trained attack dog. :)

                                                  'wulf

                                                  --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, kevin purtrell <krpurtell@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Dear Pan Grimkirk,
                                                  >
                                                  > Wulf is overly protective of his spouse.
                                                  > I am overly protective of Phebe.
                                                  > Master Hal is overly protective of Mistress Juliana.
                                                  > Andrew McBaine is still overly protective of Sorcha.
                                                  > Master Robyyan may very well be overly protective of Sir Fern, but
                                                  as he writes the software my library uses I don't even want ot go there.
                                                  >
                                                  > Sorry you didn't get the memo. ;)
                                                  >
                                                  > Kevin Ambrozijwski
                                                  >
                                                • Dolores Becker
                                                  What she said. Since when are courtesy and truth mutually exclusive? To be courteous and false is a terrible thing, but to be honest and rude is not much
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Sep 18, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    What she said. 

                                                    Since when are courtesy and truth mutually exclusive?  To be courteous and false is a terrible thing, but to be honest and rude is not much better - that is, honesty does not excuse rudeness any more than courtesy excuses falseness.  Is it so difficult to behave in such a manner that both courtesy and truth are served? 

                                                    Yes, I know, I and mine have been known to champion rudeness in our day.  We've mellowed.  Playing nice with the other kids now...mostly. } ; )

                                                    Living the Code, Serving the Dream

                                                    Berngard Solgai, called Moose
                                                    Incipient Shire of Foxvale
                                                    Dark Horde Moritu

                                                    kateslists@... wrote:
                                                     
                                                    On 9/17/07, Purple wrote:
                                                    >  Truth does not take a backseat to politeness.
                                                    IMHO, Politeness does not and should not take a backseat to truth.
                                                     
                                                    IMHO, the SCA ideals include Chivalry and Courtesy.  Politeness is a inherant to Courtesy.
                                                     
                                                    Apparently, you're mileage varies. 
                                                     
                                                    Bojei



                                                    ------------------------------------------
                                                    The almost right life is nothing at all. The right life is dangerous, open-ended, more questions than answers, a map to undiscovered countries.
                                                    -- 'Chasing Shakespeares' by Sarah Smith


                                                    Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
                                                    Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.

                                                  • David Valenta
                                                    In point of fact Grey Gargoyles has not had a vote on the Barony Issue (tm). We voted on whether we wanted to discuss the issue. We voted on whether we
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Sep 19, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      In point of fact Grey Gargoyles has not had a "vote" on the Barony Issue
                                                      (tm).
                                                      We voted on whether we wanted to discuss the issue.
                                                      We voted on whether we wanted to "vote".
                                                      We have voted on when we want to "vote".
                                                      The actual "vote" will be at our October Business Meeting so our
                                                      student population can be included.

                                                      Unless we vote otherwise.

                                                      Guy Dawkins
                                                    • John Adams
                                                      -- Grimkirk :) ... From: David Valenta To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com Sent:
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Sep 19, 2007
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        <grabbing a helmet and looking for the nearest foxhole>
                                                        -- Grimkirk :)

                                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                                        From: David Valenta <dvalenta@...>
                                                        To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                                                        Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:18:42 AM
                                                        Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Groups Transition Discussion


                                                        In point of fact Grey Gargoyles has not had a "vote" on the Barony Issue
                                                        (tm).
                                                        We voted on whether we wanted to discuss the issue.
                                                        We voted on whether we wanted to "vote".
                                                        We have voted on when we want to "vote".
                                                        The actual "vote" will be at our October Business Meeting so our
                                                        student population can be included.

                                                        Unless we vote otherwise.

                                                        Guy Dawkins


                                                        ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                                        Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
                                                        http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
                                                      • spdesroches@att.net
                                                        ... A couple of points First, the vote taken at that meeting * was a preliminary one necessary to decide on whether or not to proceed. This was also done at
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Sep 19, 2007
                                                        • 0 Attachment

                                                          -------------- Original message from spdesroches@...: --------------

                                                          A couple of points

                                                           

                                                          First, the vote taken at that meeting * was a preliminary one necessary to decide on whether or not to proceed. This was also done at Grey Gargoyles, with discussion amongst those who attended.

                                                           

                                                          My words, your point taken. see you in October.

                                                          *(TGS)

                                                          Etienne

                                                          .

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