[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re[4]: Atlantian problems..... (fwd)
Michael Johnson (SCA name unknown to me) responded publically to my
private post. I apologize if I inferred something he did
not mean from his original message, but I read him to expect
someday to achieve a crown and all three peerages. He
responded that he has the "potential" to achieve these
things, and he may well. Few people ever achieve their full
potential. I continue to believe, though, that it may show
inappropriate arrogance to hold forth in such a forum as
this with language so imprudent as to suggest that one
expects to "deserve" everything (or anything, for that
matter). There are many considerations that go into a
decision to elevate an individual to the peerage or to an
Order of Merit, and some of the deliberations can be opaque
to people outside the order (and frankly, sometimes to those
inside it as well).
It would be nice if SCA royalty were omniscient. It would
also be nice if everyone who won the crown were equally:
honest
fair
smart
knowledgeable
well-traveled
tactful
good with names and faces
(your adjective here)
It's not true, and our method of selecting monarchs (another
subject entirely, and not one I'm proposing we open) is not
designed to select infallibly for those qualities. My best
advice is that you write letters of recommendation for
people you think are worthy of recognition to the Crown, and
that you follow up later with a request for information
about the results of any polling that was done. That may
help you to know why an award you recommended was not made.
Remember that people know others in different ways, and
someone who has shown a certain side of himself to you may
have shown a completely different side of himself, or no
side at all, to someone else.
Please note that none of this has any direct bearing at all
on Lord Sigurd, whom I do not know well enough to comment
upon, nor would I ever do so in such a public medium as
this.
Please note also that I did not intend to take Michael to
task for holding an opinion different from mine. It would
be a dull world indeed if everyone thought precisely the
same way. I am interested, though, that he seemed to be
willing to take other responses in private, and even offered
to get permission to forward someone else's response to me,
while he went public with my response with no attempt to
secure my permission.
I hope this illuminates at least a little the context of my
message to Michael. I remain ready to discuss the issues
involved wherever I can be of help.
Melisande
The following is an attached File item from cc:Mail. It contains
information that had to be encoded to ensure successful transmission
through various mail systems. To decode the file use the UUDECODE
program.
--------------------------------- Cut Here ---------------------------------
begin 644 rfc822.txt
M4F5C96EV960Z(&)Y(&-C;6%I;"!F<F]M(&]S9C$N9VUU+F5D=0T*1G)O;2!M
M:F]H;G-O-T!O<V8Q+F=M=2YE9'4-"E@M16YV96QO<&4M1G)O;3H@;6IO:&YS
M;S=`;W-F,2YG;74N961U#0I296-E:79E9#H@8GD@;W-F,2YG;74N961U.R`H
M-2XV-2\Q+C$N."XR+S`W4V5P.30M,3`P,4%-+T=-578Q*0T*("`@(&ED($%!
M,#DY-C8[(%=E9"P@,34@1F5B(#$Y.34@,3$Z,34Z,#@@+3`U,#`-"D1A=&4Z
M(%=E9"P@,34@1F5B(#$Y.34@,3$Z,34Z,#4@+3`U,#`@*$535"D-"D9R;VTZ
M($UI8VAA96P@4"!*;VAN<V]N(#QM:F]H;G-O-T!O<V8Q+F=M=2YE9'4^#0I4
M;SH@0V%R;VP@3R=,96%R>2`\0V%R;VQ?3R=,96%R>4!E9"YG;W8^#0I3=6)J
M96-T.B!293H@4F5;,ETZ($%T;&%N=&EA;B!P<F]B;&5M<RXN+BXN("AF=V0I
M#0I);BU297!L>2U4;SH@/#DU,#$Q-3<Y,C@N04$W.3(X-C<T.#!`960N9V]V
M/@T*365S<V%G92U)9#H@/%!I;F4N3U-&+C,N.3$N.34P,C$U,3$P,C(P+C$W
M.3$S1"TQ,#`P,#!`;W-F,2YG;74N961U/@T*36EM92U697)S:6]N.B`Q+C`-
M"D-O;G1E;G0M5'EP93H@5$585"]03$%)3CL@8VAA<G-E=#U54RU!4T-)20T*
end