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

Re: [Ayreton] Re: Groups Transition Discussion

Expand Messages
  • Scribesquire@comcast.net
    Responded to privately. Henry of Exeter ... From: Drew Nicholson ... Truth does not take a backseat to politeness. There are people
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.