What leifr L Leifr said about the Principality debate

[76THORSON@CUA.EDU]

From:	IN%"lharrop@mrj.com"  "Lance Harrop"  9-FEB-1995 10:04:44.79
To:	IN%"76THORSON@CUA.EDU"
CC:	IN%"atlantia-l@netcom.com"
Subj:	RE: the principality debate


Lady Alianora Munro,

> All right, Leifr, fair enough.  Nonetheless, this little "debate" is turning
> into an increasingly tense brouhaha, and I'm not sure it's truly worth it. 

I am trying not to let the fact that the Con-P are or have been steamed 
about imflamatory retoric used by other Pro-P to be an excuse for closing 
this discussion.  I AM TRYING TO BE POLITE.  My ideas have been called 
evil, nightmarish, and a joke.  Many people seem far more concerned about 
my personal reasons for supporting principalities then about those 
reasons I believe justify principalities.  And people keep trying to 
redefine the debate, and then I getted blamed when it happens.

> I
> don't really buy the "principalities are fun" justification for creating them,
> and I am certainly and emphatically NOT enjoying the discussion. 

I certainly don't think the Fun quotient of principalities can be 
determined by the level of Fun in this discussion.

> I back
> Kendrick's statement that this is a hobby and supposed to be fun.  My everyday
> life contains enough tense discussions and ferocious debates to suit me just
> fine, and I'd prefer not to have to endure them in my spare time.  The Great
> Atlantian Principality Debate has gone on for a long time in a variety of
> different forums, and hasn't achieved anything. 

I think the debate has not achieved anything because the Pro-P let it die 
in the face of any solid opposition.  When anyone says it wouldn't be 
good or it wouldn't be fun, I feel they should be required to bring forth 
reasons too.  I have heard ONE good reason for opposing, or at least not 
joining, principalities, and it's group specific, not universal, and not 
applicable to the whole Kingdom.

> Unless someone's got a sound,
> practical reason for forming principalities, I vote for letting the discussion
> die.  It certainly isn't going anywhere.
> 
No, I'm definitally achieving some of my goals.  There is movement on 
more than one issue.

In Service
Leifr Johansson
CFFP

Return-path: <lharrop@mrj.com>
Received: from relay3.UU.NET by cusrvb.cua.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #6262)
 id <01HMUB88OAF48ZDW1Z@cusrvb.cua.edu>; Thu, 09 Feb 1995 10:04:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turtle.mrj.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP id QQyciu24216; Thu,
 9 Feb 1995 10:02:10 -0500
Received: from newt.mrj.com (newt.mrj.com [204.177.76.69])
 by turtle.mrj.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA24914; Thu,
 9 Feb 1995 10:01:58 -0500
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 10:01:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>
Subject: Re: the principality debate
In-reply-to: <01HMT30C7PEQ95MXKJ@CU4700.CUA.EDU>
To: 76THORSON@CUA.EDU
Cc: atlantia-l@netcom.com
Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950209095057.25685A-100000@newt.mrj.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT