The whole bloody mess...

["chuck graves" <chuck_graves@mail.hq.faa.gov>]

     Sorry, Henry...I know this slid past your Principality kill file.
     
     A structured debate seemed like a reasonable suggestion. But Richard 
     was certainly right, a debate cannot be moderated in this forum, and 
     Leifr agreed.
     
     So I'll add one last post to this argument (I don't believe it's a 
     debate anymore).
     
     Only ONE condition is NECESSARY for the formation of a principality:   
        Consensus of the affected group to establish itself.
     
     This condition will be founded upon three bases: practical, communal, 
     and personal.
     
     The practical basis includes issues associated with management and 
     administration such as: a) the population is too great to be managed 
     or b) the administrative costs are too much for the populace to bear. 
     In other words, the kingdom is collapsing under its own weight and can 
     no longer function effectively.
     
     The communal basis includes issues associated with the spiritual 
     health of the group such as: a) a regional identity has formed and 
     wishes to be recognized, b) internal politics are tearing the kingdom 
     apart, or c) subdivision will produce healthier groups. In other 
     words, the kingdom requires subdivision to heal itself.
     
     The personal basis includes issues associated with each individual 
     such as: a) principalities will be fun, b) I can try a moderately 
     difficult task before I go after the big one, c) I want to fight in a 
     coronet list, d) I'm tired of dealing with the Brass Hat, or e) I 
     think there's too much driving. In other words, every private reason 
     each of us has for why we want a principality.
     
     Frankly, the practical basis does not exist. In fact, the formation of 
     a principality will accomplish the opposite--more work, more 
     bureaucracy, more confusion.
     
     The communal basis has seen very little debate. And none that I have 
     seen seemed convincing--let alone compelling.
     
     The personal basis is the most contentious. It sits closest to our 
     hearts, produces the most "heat" in this discussion, and deals the 
     most grievous wounds. I believe Leifr has noted that this basis 
     provides the greatest variety of support--and the least agreement.
     
     I submit that leaves the argument with a single foot to stand on.
     
     At the beginning, I asserted there is only ONE NECESSARY condition:
        Consensus of the affected group to establish itself.
     
     Good gentles, that condition CANNOT be met now--and probably not for a 
     very long time.
     
     I would make one other observation. An argument exists only so long as 
     there are two opposing viewpoints being expressed. When there are no 
     more responses, there will only remain one voice--crying at the wind.
     
     One last post...I've said all I should care to.
     
     Tadhg
     ...one of the sweet, strong ales, my good man. I'll be at the back table.