[Artemisia] Comments regarding latest BoD announcment

Tue Mar 28 20:48:20 CST 2006

So you wait till several someones get killed at an unsafe intersection 
before you deem it necessary to put either a STOP sign or light at that 
point to make it safe?

VL

>From: Sondra Gibson <sgibson at edulog.com>
>Reply-To: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list 
><artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>To: 'Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list' <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>Subject: RE: [Artemisia] Comments regarding latest BoD announcment
>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:31:33 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from mail.coyotetechnical.com ([207.235.5.207]) by 
>bay0-mc10-f4.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 
>28 Mar 2006 15:35:01 -0800
>Received: (qmail 10404 invoked by uid 0); 28 Mar 2006 17:34:40 -0600
>Received: from localhost (HELO wiley.coyotetechnical.com) (127.0.0.1)  by 
>localhost with SMTP; 28 Mar 2006 17:34:40 -0600
>Received: (qmail 7324 invoked by uid 0); 28 Mar 2006 17:31:50 -0600
>Received: from mail.edulog.com (208.32.7.18)by wiley.coyotetechnical.com 
>with SMTP; 28 Mar 2006 17:31:49 -0600
>Received: from rearadmiral.logistics.int 
>(rearadmiral.logistics.int[172.16.34.3]) by mail.edulog.com (Postfix) with 
>ESMTP id C365511FA5for <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>;Tue, 28 Mar 2006 
>16:31:40 -0700 (MST)
>Received: by rearadmiral.logistics.int with Internet Mail Service 
>(5.5.2657.72)id <1MWS855L>; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:31:40 -0700
>X-Message-Info: 6sSXyD95QpVet73BUlA55YuOb8x/yx5wI1opy2AWLv4=
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
>X-Logistics-MailScanner-Information: Please contact LogiSYS/Edulog HelpDesk
>X-Logistics-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on 
>wiley.coyotetechnical.com
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01 autolearn=no 
>version=2.63
>X-Spam-Level: X-BeenThere: artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list 
><artemisia.lists.gallowglass.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia>,<mailto:artemisia-request at lists.gallowglass.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.gallowglass.org/pipermail/artemisia>
>List-Post: <mailto:artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:artemisia-request at lists.gallowglass.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia>,<mailto:artemisia-request at lists.gallowglass.org?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: artemisia-bounces+smaschek=hotmail.com at lists.gallowglass.org
>Return-Path: artemisia-bounces+smaschek=hotmail.com at lists.gallowglass.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2006 23:35:01.0816 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[3BDCC380:01C652C0]
>
>I have to agree with Sir Conrad, Sir Dan and Morgan.  If a situation 
>arrises
>where a *real* threat exists, as in the example Mst. Thea gave, my answer
>would be to call the mundane authorities.  Otherwise, I see no reason to
>give the BoD more powers than it already has.  I have strong reservations
>about imposing sanctions on anyone *accused* but not *convicted* of a 
>crime.
>What happed to the presumption of inocent till *proven* guilty?  And IMO 
>the
>whole thing is way too vague.  I see more paranoia in feeling the need to
>have something like this than in not wanting still more rules and
>regulations.
>
>Mst. Gefjon Hrafnardottir
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: artemisia-bounces+sgibson=edulog.com at lists.gallowglass.org
> > [mailto:artemisia-bounces+sgibson=edulog.com at lists.gallowglass.org]On
> > Behalf Of Chuck Heisler Jr.
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 4:15 PM
> > To: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list
> > Subject: RE: [Artemisia] Comments regarding latest BoD announcment
> >
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> >   God forbid I should agree with Sir Dan and Morgan, but . . .
> >
> >   What happens if the Society Seneschal and the Crown
> > DISAGREE on continuing sanctions?
> >
> >   I didn't see anything addressing that.
> >
> >   I've been on both ends of this argument, being the person
> > who needs to ask someone to leave for conduct unbecoming (or
> > an accusation thereof) and being the person accused of
> > conduct detrimental to the society (I'm not the 'Black Baron
> > of One Thousand Eyes' for nothing).  Although it was not
> > elevated to a 'paperwork' level in either case.
> >
> >   I am in complete agreement with this sentiment "Don't tear
> > down th efence
> > untill you know why it was built", but in this case, I agree
> > with Morgan and Dan that the current system seems to be
> > working well for banishments and etc., so why 'improve' upon
> > it?  Why take the local juridiction out of the decision loop
> > for any reason?  I guess I just don't see any situation in
> > which the Society Seneschal would need to supercede or 'add'
> > to the decision a Crown decides on.
> >
> >   Who knows more about an individual case than the people
> > closest to the issue and in authority?  In this case, the
> > Crown of that particular Kingdom.
> >
> >   In any case, I believe that this is a bad idea.  I just
> > can't concieve of a situation  " . . . when Royal Sanctions
> > are inappropriate or logistically impractical, . . ." and the
> > action of the Society Seneschal is appropriate and
> > logistically practical.  Short of the Crowns being stone dead
> > and no replacements in the offing.
> >
> >   So, I don't think its paranoia to want to limit the power
> > of BOD in this respect.  I think it is the BOD's duty be at
> > the call of the Society, not the Society's duty to be at the
> > will of the BOD.
> >
> >   Sincerely,
> >
> >   Sir Conrad von Zuberbuhler
> >
> > Spencer Maschek <smaschek at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >   With all due respect to you both, I think you are taking it waay to
> > seriously. A word of advice from a great man, Don't tear down
> > th efence
> > untill you know why it was built. Let me leave you with this thought,
> > Before cars were invented people got around "fine" and
> > wondered the same
> > thing. (If I may quote you your Lordship) >This system as it
> > is has worked
> > fine for 40 years, why fix it now?
> > A lot of people wondered why we need to travel faster, by a piece of
> > machinary that could be potentially dangerous? Now look at society in
> > general, where would we be without the invention of teh
> > "automobile" that
> > people labeled as "unnecessary, if we have been traveling th
> > way we have
> > been for ""40 years why fix it now?" Just a thought. I still
> > say "don't
> > tear down the fence till you understand why it was put up." I
> > don't think
> > it would let someone as to be so petty as to label a
> > homosexual or a cranky
> > individual as a person for banishment, or to be
> > "investigated" as such. I
> > agree that you could put a few words out in my direction that
> > could make me
> > investigatable, but think about how many people in the
> > Mundane world may
> > have tried to get others in trouble for petty nonsense things
> > and gotten
> > nowhere. I think that the integrity in question is not so
> > much a question
> > of liking or not liking someone based on unmatched morals,
> > the quewstion is
> > how childish is someone going to be and if they decide to be
> > that childish
> > then let them, there is not that much time for the BOD to
> > investigate every
> > whiny persons little "oh woah is me, he hurt my feel bads,
> > and I want him
> > investigated." Or "He said, she said called me a
> > poo-poo-head, and I want
> > him/her banished"
> >
> > Seriously guys, paranoia.
> >
> > Vlad's Lady
> > (Who wants to make clear that these are the opinions of me
> > and me alone with
> > no feed back form my Lord who has not yet read this, and may
> > comment later
> > if he sees fit)
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >With respect to Vlad's lady, and others who may agree with
> > her, I have to
> > >make a couple of points here-
> > >
> > >I have, at various points in my life, been one of those who
> > some people
> > >considered to be a "negative depiction of the Society". In
> > some circles, I
> > >still am considered such. Does this mean I should be
> > temp-banished until
> > >the Society Seneschal decides I'm really not that bad of a
> > guy because
> > >someone filed a complaint about me?
> > >What about those who's conduct I find questionable? Those
> > who's morals
> > >don't match mine? What if I was one of those poor fools who
> > think being a
> > >homosexual is a "negative depiction", could I get them all
> > temp-banished?
> > >
> > >This system as it is has worked fine for 40 years, why fix it now?
> > >
> > >HL Morgan Blaidd Du
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Artemisia mailing list
> > >Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> > >http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Artemisia mailing list
> > Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> > http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from
> > your PC and save big.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Artemisia mailing list
> > Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> > http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Artemisia mailing list
>Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia