[Artemisia] I am an idiot

[Dr. C. M. Helm-Clark]

This is an attempt at pre-emption.  I sent the wrong version of the 
email I wrote earlier and I must apologize and make some corrections. 
Really, it's my fault for trying to post through the haze of too much 
cold medicine (home from a cold - it's why I have some time to post for 
a change).

When I said things like "the 2 paragraphs in the BoD meeting report," 
that was the version of the email I wrote before my plugged-up brain 
and my drugged-up sinuses realized that there were THREE paragraphs, 
the first of which did mention particulars more tersely than I would 
have liked but regardless of that, time and place were indeed mentioned 
more  than adequately, thus negating most of what I said.  I rewrote my 
email to account for the fact that there were 3 paragraphs, the first 
of which covered what my original email took as omissions - and then I 
ended up sending the original, not the second revised, email - and 
didn't realize it until after I got home from baronial business 
meetting.

Like I said, I'm an idiot and I was insufficiently careful in posting.  
I'm feeling really stupid right now so please, don't take me to task 
too hard - it was a very embarrassing "blond" moment, and in front of 
everybody too...

So please, my thoughts of referring people to the Aerie archives rather 
than bothering Ibrahim & Co. still stand.

(start at
http://lists.gallowglass.org/pipermail/artemisia/2005-August/003526.html
and then click the "next message" link to work through the original 
entire thread on the matter)

Regardless of what people think about the affair, it has to be a very 
hard time for Ibrahim & Co. to live through and contacting him et al. 
about details struck me as potentially stabbing someone where they are 
already wounded. If the dude is willing to talk directly to the 
curious, I suspect he would  make that known, but in absence of that 
knowledge, I think it is much  more civilized and gracious to give him 
some privacy for the time being. What's in the archives is more than 
adequate to answer almost all questions on the background behind the 
BoD decision.

I do think 5 years of censure is way too much comparing past actions 
taken by the BoD in the 2 instances that are comparable as equivalent 
or near-equivalent in circumstances and outrage on the part of 
succeeding royalty, peerage and populace of a kingdom (and in one of 
those cases, possibly the most outrageous case, three kingdoms!)  Two 
years would have been defensible - five years of censure is a very bad 
precedent!  Is anyone else as uncomfortable as me with setting a 5 year 
precedence for censure???  Other than outright banishment and/or 
revocation of membership, there are never been so severe a censure for 
an action that rocked the boat badly but broke no laws, kingdom, 
corporate or otherwise.

Just my 2 cents worth
ttfn
Therasia von IamAnIdiot