The Acorn, and what they are saying

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

Lord Henry Best in a note on Lady Anne Elizabeth, our stressed Kingdom 
Chronicler, wrote:

> Okay, okay. I didn't see whatever post Annie is reacting to either.
> 
You two are referring to a post by Lady Siobhan entitled "Problems, 
Boundaries, and Some Random Thoughts".  It was ably seconded by Lord 
Ellwood.  And while it is true that Lady Siobhan wrote it because of the 
principality debate, it was not directly part of the debate, and as you 
can see from the title, didn't use Principality as a keyword, so I don't 
see how you managed to kill it.

> Annie is a _good_ chronicler.
> 
I'll second that.

> Anyway, whoever, if you are unhappy about the Acorn, you don't need
> a principality to fix it. You just need to offer to help out. And
> now you know Annie's e-mail address and that she could use a hand.

You know Henry, if you're not going to be part of the debate, then you 
probably should not throw random thoughts like this out.  While it is 
hardly my position to defend Lady Siobhan, I can with surety say that she 
would not have suggested, and did not suggest, that principalities are 
needed to fix the Acorn.  I wouldn't have suggested that either.  

As a more general comment.  I've seen a number of people randomly dip 
into the stream of messages about the principality debate, then make 
stonefast comments of "Well, I haven't seen anything to convince me of 
the Good of Principalities".  Fine, so you missed it.  I think it does a 
diservice to people like Lady Siobhan, who, even though she finds the 
debate irritating, has the courtesy to follow it enough to make reasoned 
and detailed posts.

Frankly I find that Lady Siobhan and those like her have shown far more 
concern for this Kingdom then those who pop up to make comments and dive 
under their kill files to ignore the replies.

In Service
Leifr Johansson