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

Re: [Ayreton] Re: Groups Transition Discussion

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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.