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

Re: Groups Transition Discussion

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.