ANST - Question...

[Bill Osterheim]

Pug Bainter wrote:
> 
> Good Morning,
> 
>   I am truly very confused by this, and maybe someone out there can help
>   me.
> 
>   When one person does something wrong, they are unchivalric and need to
>   be taken to task for it. Right?
> 
>   People then decide that they are the judge and jury and must bring
>   this public as rudely as possible to teach the person a lesson, and
>   thus being unchivalric themself. Right?
> 
>   I understand that emotions can be wrapped up in it and knee-jerk
>   reactions happen, but chivalrous behavior is not about any kind of jerk.
> 
>   First, two wrongs don't make anything right. No amount of wrong doings
>   can do good. As well, in most cases, the ends will not be enough to
>   justify the means. Karma is a heavy burden to carry. Etc.
> 

Vivat, Pug!



Here is another little quandry... There have been occasions when I have
known of members of the Chivalric Order to be most unchivalric. The 
order has been fully aware of at lease some of these, and rarely,
if ever, does anything about it. This reflects very poorly on the
bulk of members that are chivalrous. Chivalry would seem to me to be
at least as important as the ability to bonk somebody on the noggin in
the makeup of a Knight. Perhaps repeated improper behavor should result
in the loosing of rank? Especially of the Peerages?

Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions?

(PS: I am just an observer... not a peer, and not at all sure I
want to be one!)

Polydore

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.