privte: Re: SC - Lady Seaton's Projectofo

[Alderton, Philippa]

In a message dated 3/19/00 10:07:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
phlip at morganco.net writes:

<< Ras:
 
 <<For some reason you do this frequently- write (private) in the heading of
 the posting, >>

I wouldn't call 5 times in a couple of years 'frequently'  by any stretch of 
the imagination.

<<What's even worse. is every time you do it,  you show yourself to be 
two-faced- in other words, >>

I guess our definition of that concept is different. Being critical, whether 
rightfully or wrongfully in regard to a specific incident is not being 
'two-faced.' 

<<but your  passionate goal, as you have expressed many times, is to become a 
 Laurel, a Peer of the Society, >>

Actually my expressed goal is to serve the Society. You do not become a 
Laurel. You either are or are not a peer. My questions about the Laurel has 
been why they don't set standard rules for elevation. It is fairly difficult 
to set a goal of achieving what one already is. 

<<To become any other flavor of Peer, you have to be elected  to that station 
by others who are already there. >>

I think that the word is 'recognized' by your peers, not elected. Many, if 
not all of the peers that I know have their own specific character flaws. I 
am convinced that it is your overall performance that is dealt with not 
isolated occurrences. If the latter were the basis for elevation then there 
is not a single peer who would now be a peer.

<<Last fall I withdrew my favor from you for precisely the same reason.>>

Peerage is not dependent on whether a favor was withdrawn because of a 
perceived slight. Every peer who has spoken to me so far indicates that my 
particular bugaboo is lack of published works. None have ever indicated that 
any of the supposed problems that you allude to is of any major importance at 
this time. When it was mentioned in passing, it was merely to indicate that a 
peer must always be vigilant in showing peer qualities. Perfection was not 
indicated as a necessity.

<>

I distrust many people that others trust and I trust many people that others 
distrust. Personal relationships are irrelevant in the big picture. 

Allison and I have been good friends in any sense of the word for many years 
and I am sure that she will not abandon me for saying something in the heat 
of anger. If she does then it will be a great loss for me. But I am sure that 
she knows that things are often said in the heat of anger which are not meant 
to be taken literally. And I am positive that Allison knows that I care for 
her deeply and am deeply ashamed for any pain I may have caused by my angry 
words.

<< Something like that gets around, not just to those of us on Cook's List, 
as the recent, um, "discussion" with Trimaris proves.>>

It only 'gets around' if gossip mongers persist in spreading tales instead of 
talking about the weather. The discussion with Trimaris only proves that some 
folks habit of crossposting messages that are potentially harmful to other 
lists is a despicable and dishonorable practice.

 <<Do you really think that the difficulties you had finding  an 
apprenticeship >>

I had no difficulties finding an apprenticeship. I had difficulties in 
finding a Laurel that was expert in my field that was willing to deal with a 
long distance apprenticeship. 

<< I, and others, really care about you, and wish you to attain the goals
 you've set for yourself.>>

Then the best thing you could do is to stop bringing up the past whenever a 
crisis exists. The second thing would be an attempt to not second guess the 
motives for my actions. 

 <<We would be remiss if we didn't do everything we  could to help you attain 
them, and in this case, it means trying to reason  with you. >>

I know you think you are doing 'what is right' for me but, in reality I find 
it very hard to see what a listing of perceived or actual errors from the 
past to a public forum does to 'help.' However, I except your 'advice' in the 
spirit it was intended.

<< Phlip >>

Ras