[Artemisia] Comments regarding latest BoD announcment

[Sondra Gibson]

You are comparing apples and oranges.  You are not damaging anyone's life by
presuming them guilty, when you put up a stop sign.  But I have known people
who have had their lives turned upside down by being presumed guilty of
something, that in the end they were cleared of.  So yes, I have a problem
with the vague wording of this proposal and with banishing someone without
pretty strong evidence of wrongdoing.  Just my own personal opinion.

Gefjon


> Behalf Of Spencer Maschek
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:48 PM
> To: artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> Subject: RE: [Artemisia] Comments regarding latest BoD announcment
> 
> 
> 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' 
> >Subject: RE: [Artemisia] Comments regarding latest BoD announcment
> >Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:31:33 -0700
> >
> >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
> >
>