NR - Principality

[Fitzmorgan at cs.com]

n a message dated 9/5/00 7:32:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
merrikviltarhar at swbell.net writes:

> > Robert Fitzmorgan adds;
>  >     Please read what I am actually typing.  Not what you think I'm 
typing.
>  > Kat NEVER EVER said that she didn't think we could become a principality.
>  > I've read all the messages.  She didn't say it.  She said that she didn't
>  > thiak that the population of Oklahoma could support a KINGDOM.  She never
>  > said ANYTHING about whether we could support a principality.  I've 
looked.
>  > She didn't.  You are arguing with her about something she never said, and
>  she
>  > has repeatedly told you that she never said it.   This discussion will go
>  > MUCH better if you would read what people actually said and not what you
>  > think they said.  Please.
>  
>  I apologive to you for getting Principality and\or Kingdom title wires
>  crossed, but it doesn't seem nearly as important as the fact a Peer of my
>  Realm and Region has continuously stated Northern Ansteorra can't 
accomplish
>  something.  So she said we couldn't support a Kingdom, and she personally
>  doesn't support a Principality...have I got it straight now?
>  
>  Perhaps you should "listen" yourself, at this point, Kingdom\Principality
>  equals 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.  As Herrin Sigen pointed out
>  with her list of very pertinant questions, there are much more important
>  issues.
>  
>  Did I understand your point to me? Are you understanding my point back?  I
am arguing that Northern Ansteorra CAN accomplish something.
>  
>  Now would you explain to me how this thread about how well you feel I can
>  perceive what I read has to do with the Northern Region?
>  
>  Merrik
>  

    On re-reading my message I think I got a little carried away.  Kat and 
others had repeatedly pointed out that you were arguing with something that 
Kat had never actually said, and you still didn't seem to get it.  I was 
trying to put it in a way that couldn't be missed.  On re-reading it I 
realize I might have been a bit rude.  I apologize.
    As to her opinion that the population base of Oklahoma might not be able 
to support a Kingdom, I suspect that she is right.  If, as Sir Burke has 
said, the BoD likes for a group to have 50% more than the base numbers 
required for a change in status that would mean that we would want a stable 
membership of 600+ members before trying to become a Kingdom.  I think we can 
easily support a principality but I don't see us having the kind of numbers 
needed for a Kingdom anytime soon.  Principality yes, Kingdom not likely.  I 
don't consider this to be an argument against becoming a princpality.  Some 
seem to regard a principality as a stepping stone to becoming a kingdom.  I 
don't see that happening for a LOOONG time.  Now if the proposed principality 
were to include branches that are now part of the central or western region 
that might be different, but I've seen nothing to indicate that any of those 
branches would want to be part of a northern principality.  
    You said that  "Kingdom\Principality equals 6 of one, half a dozen of the 
other"  I don't agree, they are very different things.  I think we could be a 
principality now if we had the will to do so.  I am not at all convinced that 
the Northern region can support a stable membership of 600+.   

You also said:
>  Did I understand your point to me? Are you understanding my point back?  I
>  am arguing that Northern Ansteorra CAN accomplish something.

    I agree.  We CAN accomplish a lot.  What we should be discussing now, in 
my opinion, is what do we want to accomplish and how do we go about 
accomplishing it.  I think the discussion about whether we can or can't 
support a kingdom can wait till after we see if there is any support for a 
principality.

Robert Fitzmorgan

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