Re: The Evil P-word

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

Earl Dafydd writes:
> 
> I applaud Leifr's sentiment in attempting to keep the debate
> orderly and controlled.  But!
> 
> Some of the subjects Leifr mentions are issues of mechanics (e.g.,
> numbers 3-7), and some are issues of philosophy.  Some are
> dependent upon the result to the debate on other ones.  And some
> (1,2, and 9) are interdependent.
> 
> 1. 	>Let's divide Atlantia into three Principalities
> 2. 	>Do we really need a principality?
> 3. 	>Doesn't a principality have to follow a state border?
> 4. 	>Do we want more Royalty?
> 5. 	>Do we want more Orders?
> 6. 	>Do we want more Newsletters?
> 7. 	>Do we want more excluded dates for Principality Events?
> 8. 	>Where will all the spiffiness come from?
> 9.	>Doesn't enough opposition exist to kill principalities anyway?
> 
> I think that the debate should be focussed differently from the
> way Leifr proposes.  As I see it, there are three meta-topics for
> debate:
> A.	Principality--Philosophical Issues (Leifr's 1, 2, 9)
> B.	Principality Implementation (Leifr's 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
> C.	Principality Borders (Leifr's 1, 3)
> 
Well, to reply to Earl Dafydd's concerns, I suppose I should move item 9 
up, though I had hoped to show by the nature of this discussion that 
opposition to principalities is not composed of intragenent reactionaries 
but of concerned, thoughtful, loyal subjects to the Crown who have the 
best interests of the Kingdom at heart and who can be persuaded by 
reasoned proposals.

As for item number 3, Lord Evan has thoughtfully nailed that one on the 
head already.

In Service
Leifr Johansson
CFFP