Blew the first posting, let's try this again;
Greetings, gentles all. This is James of Rutland responding to Lady
Adrianna's post.
In a message dated 98-04-05 20:09:39 EDT, she
wrote:
<<
Poster: Yakgodess <Yakgodess@aol.com>
> Greetings to all from Lady Adrianna Broussard who is not only standing on a
soap box but has sleeves rolled up and is ready to fight!<
And greetings from James of Rutland, who loves a good cat fight
and might as well keep this one going...
> Lord Stephan,
How dare you assume you understand the role of our
Monarchs!!<
Anyone, including yourself, my Lady, must think that they DO
understand the role of the monarchs of a kingdom, and their own kingdom in
particular, in order to comment at all. If Stephan is presumptuous in
venturing an opinion, then so are you, and so am I. What may be forgotten
here is that (as far as I know, I don't think I know Stephan) he, and you,
and I, have a RIGHT to their own opinion, and a RIGHT to state it. If it was
stated bluntly, I for one still have no reason to believe the view was not
sincere. I have blasted sincere opinions before, but I generally have to
believe that they're genuinely approaching slander or actual harm first. - J
> It seems to me sir, that you are not only endlessly rude; but a
coward as well... if you feel that TRM are not "doing the job" then perhaps
you should get out from behind your keyboard and address them privately to
discuss your perspective. <
So the rebuke for calling someone rude, then, is to call
them a coward. Considering the potential for vitriolic replies to any
statement made here, and that he signed his name to it, I'd hardly call him
a
coward. Furthermore, as one who knows nothing of what Stephan has or has not
done privately, I may NOT assume that he has NOT addressed them privately.
May I assume (please honor me with a reply, I'm curious) that you had
KNOWLEDGE before you posted that he had not? The logical question, in fact,
is to ask you whether you yourself contacted Stephan privately first, and did
not obtain satisfaction, before you posted? --I do admit that I have not
contacted you, Lady Adrianna, first.
> In a society based on honor and chivalry it is
inconceivable of you to viciously attack our Monarchs via a posting on this
forum.<
It isn't the first or the last time a monarch has been or will be
attacked. Your point would be better made if we were not Americans sending
E-
mail. The Society is a GAME; the REALITY is freedom of speech in a country
founded on that freedom. Furthermore, there is the period equivalent of
Luther's nailing his theses to the church door, which was about as public.
I
don't know if political broadsiding is period-- certainly just postperiod, it
was. You realize, of course, that this is only possible in a literate
population-- which we have and Period didn't.
> I can only assume that you blindly make such comments because you are
afraid to travel to meet your Monarchs? <
I cannot see how the one follows from the other, and with as many
reigns as TM have had, the odds are quite good that they've met already.
This is, of course, speculation, for as I've said, I don't know this lord...I
myself wouldn't travel to meet them without good reason, for example
something
needing to be done--I have met them, I have my opinion of them formed over a
long enough period that I'm not curious any more, as I would be, say, about a
first time King and Queen. But I certainly wouldn't say from that that I was
AFRAID to meet them. This being the case with myself as an example, how does
one narrow it down to "afraid" in someone else? Again, if you KNOW this
lord, you have more knowledge than I do-- but your post doesn't state that
you
do know him.
> By the way, have you even considered
what sitting through court with a screaming 5 year old child would be like.
No, I doubt you have.<
Those who have considered it usually get baby sitters. I cannot recall
their current Majesties' earlier courts being disrupted. To me the most
likely possibilities are that the Coronet (yes, it's not a legal term, but I
liked it when it was bandied about in Barry and Simone's reign, and people
could learn to like it) was in fact either baby-sat or was used to courts. I
assume, BTW, that children in period had to sit through the occasional court
and would get used to it-- but that's digressing.
> I believe you must be a small minded man who sits by in
judgement of others.<
Such a judgement! If it were applied to myself I'd think
privately that whoever said it was a small minded person who sat by in
judgement of others... Any stated opinion is a judgement of others. And I
have judged you in order to comment at all, and others will judge me. And
the world will go on as it always has.
> How does that feel to know that you are being judged at
this moment by many who you know as your peers? It is my hope that my eyes
never grace your presence sir, for this is as kind as I could bring myself to
be. <
And it is your right to hope so, and I daresay his right as well.
> And if there still were public floggings please know that I would want to
watch--- today you have insulted not only the society and the kingdom but
two
of Atlantia's finest servants. Vivat to their Royal Majesties for upholding
their obligations to Atlantia and to Kaylun.
I had thought that if hasty words were part of those sections of the
Middle Ages that CREATIVE Anachronists would want to LEAVE BEHIND US-- for
instance, those hasty words in a rose-garden between REAL Dukes, reared in a
REAL society based on honor and chivalry, that started the Wars of the Roses
-- then surely, surely "wanting to watch" a public flogging of soneone who
hastily spoke his mind might also be left behind with the excess baggage.
I'll take all of this back, of course, if you're willing to admit to other
people's rights to wish YOU flogged in their sight for anything YOU may say.
Lord knows when I open my mouth on this forum I expect that there will be
people who wish me on the bottom of the sea somewhere-- but they're generally
polite enough not to couch it in those terms. (Which, to be honest, is more
than I can say of myself.)
I cannot comment on your "Vivat"; I have zip knowledge of TM's
situation; I do not know-- and do not at this stage WANT to know-- the one
thing that would allow me to take an actual view of TM, namely, whether TM's
were looking this situation in the face BEFORE CROWN. If they knew ahead of
Crown that this would be the case, it would be a whole 'nother ball game from
if the situation arose AFTER it. Their last reign, however, had one or two
non-sat courts, that from my personal observation without inquiry into reason
or motivation.
> I apologize in advance to any (other than Stephan) that I may have
offended.
I realize that this may seem harsh; however "an eye for and eye..." and all
that. I now step down from my box as well.
= >>
I won't?don't?can't?maybe-shouldn't? apologize in advance to you. It
seems pointless, since I acknowlege already that you have every right to take
offense at my reply, and will hear whatever reply you or others send.--
James of Rutland.
>>
-- BEGIN included message
- To: Rutlands@aol.com
- Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable
- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 00:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
- Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
The original message was received at Mon, 6 Apr 1998 00:24:57 -0400 (EDT) from root@localhost ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- owner-atlantia@adm.csc.ncsu.edu ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to adm.csc.ncsu.edu.: >>> MAIL From:<Rutlands@aol.com> SIZE=7430 <<< 550 Access denied 554 owner-atlantia@adm.csc.ncsu.edu... Service unavailable ----- Original message follows ----- Received: from Rutlands@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id PLJPa05946 for <owner-atlantia@adm.csc.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 00:24:56 -0500 (EDT) From: Rutlands <Rutlands@aol.com> Return-path: <Rutlands@aol.com> Message-ID: <ac9dbf1.3528591b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 00:24:56 EDT To: owner-atlantia@adm.csc.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: Lord Stephan Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 52 Greetings, gentles all. This is James of Rutland responding to Lady Adrianna's post. In a message dated 98-04-05 20:09:39 EDT, she wrote: << Poster: Yakgodess <Yakgodess@aol.com> > Greetings to all from Lady Adrianna Broussard who is not only standing on a soap box but has sleeves rolled up and is ready to fight!< And greetings from James of Rutland, who loves a good cat fight and might as well keep this one going... > Lord Stephan, How dare you assume you understand the role of our Monarchs!!< Anyone, including yourself, my Lady, must think that they DO understand the role of the monarchs of a kingdom, and their own kingdom in particular, in order to comment at all. If Stephan is presumptuous in venturing an opinion, then so are you, and so am I. What may be forgotten here is that (as far as I know, I don't think I know Stephan) he, and you, and I, have a RIGHT to their own opinion, and a RIGHT to state it. If it was stated bluntly, I for one still have no reason to believe the view was not sincere. I have blasted sincere opinions before, but I generally have to believe that they're genuinely approaching slander or actual harm first. - J > It seems to me sir, that you are not only endlessly rude; but a coward as well... if you feel that TRM are not "doing the job" then perhaps you should get out from behind your keyboard and address them privately to discuss your perspective. < So the rebuke for calling someone rude, then, is to call them a coward. Considering the potential for vitriolic replies to any statement made here, and that he signed his name to it, I'd hardly call him a coward. Furthermore, as one who knows nothing of what Stephan has or has not done privately, I may NOT assume that he has NOT addressed them privately. May I assume (please honor me with a reply, I'm curious) that you had KNOWLEDGE before you posted that he had not? The logical question, in fact, is to ask you whether you yourself contacted Stephan privately first, and did not obtain satisfaction, before you posted? --I do admit that I have not contacted you, Lady Adrianna, first. > In a society based on honor and chivalry it is inconceivable of you to viciously attack our Monarchs via a posting on this forum.< It isn't the first or the last time a monarch has been or will be attacked. Your point would be better made if we were not Americans sending E- mail. The Society is a GAME; the REALITY is freedom of speech in a country founded on that freedom. Furthermore, there is the period equivalent of Luther's nailing his theses to the church door, which was about as public. I don't know if political broadsiding is period-- certainly just postperiod, it was. You realize, of course, that this is only possible in a literate population-- which we have and Period didn't. > I can only assume that you blindly make such comments because you are afraid to travel to meet your Monarchs? < I cannot see how the one follows from the other, and with as many reigns as TM have had, the odds are quite good that they've met already. This is, of course, speculation, for as I've said, I don't know this lord...I myself wouldn't travel to meet them without good reason, for example something needing to be done--I have met them, I have my opinion of them formed over a long enough period that I'm not curious any more, as I would be, say, about a first time King and Queen. But I certainly wouldn't say from that that I was AFRAID to meet them. This being the case with myself as an example, how does one narrow it down to "afraid" in someone else? Again, if you KNOW this lord, you have more knowledge than I do-- but your post doesn't state that you do know him. > By the way, have you even considered what sitting through court with a screaming 5 year old child would be like. No, I doubt you have.< Those who have considered it usually get baby sitters. I cannot recall their current Majesties' earlier courts being disrupted. To me the most likely possibilities are that the Coronet (yes, it's not a legal term, but I liked it when it was bandied about in Barry and Simone's reign, and people could learn to like it) was in fact either baby-sat or was used to courts. I assume, BTW, that children in period had to sit through the occasional court and would get used to it-- but that's digressing. > I believe you must be a small minded man who sits by in judgement of others.< Such a judgement! If it were applied to myself I'd think privately that whoever said it was a small minded person who sat by in judgement of others... Any stated opinion is a judgement of others. And I have judged you in order to comment at all, and others will judge me. And the world will go on as it always has. > How does that feel to know that you are being judged at this moment by many who you know as your peers? It is my hope that my eyes never grace your presence sir, for this is as kind as I could bring myself to be. < And it is your right to hope so, and I daresay his right as well. > And if there still were public floggings please know that I would want to watch--- today you have insulted not only the society and the kingdom but two of Atlantia's finest servants. Vivat to their Royal Majesties for upholding their obligations to Atlantia and to Kaylun. I had thought that if hasty words were part of those sections of the Middle Ages that CREATIVE Anachronists would want to LEAVE BEHIND US-- for instance, those hasty words in a rose-garden between REAL Dukes, reared in a REAL society based on honor and chivalry, that started the Wars of the Roses -- then surely, surely "wanting to watch" a public flogging of soneone who hastily spoke his mind might also be left behind with the excess baggage. I'll take all of this back, of course, if you're willing to admit to other people's rights to wish YOU flogged in their sight for anything YOU may say. Lord knows when I open my mouth on this forum I expect that there will be people who wish me on the bottom of the sea somewhere-- but they're generally polite enough not to couch it in those terms. (Which, to be honest, is more than I can say of myself.) I cannot comment on your "Vivat"; I have zip knowledge of TM's situation; I do not know-- and do not at this stage WANT to know-- the one thing that would allow me to take an actual view of TM, namely, whether TM's were looking this situation in the face BEFORE CROWN. If they knew ahead of Crown that this would be the case, it would be a whole 'nother ball game from if the situation arose AFTER it. Their last reign, however, had one or two non-sat courts, that from my personal observation without inquiry into reason or motivation. > I apologize in advance to any (other than Stephan) that I may have offended. I realize that this may seem harsh; however "an eye for and eye..." and all that. I now step down from my box as well. = >> I won't?don't?can't?maybe-shouldn't? apologize in advance to you. It seems pointless, since I acknowlege already that you have every right to take offense at my reply, and will hear whatever reply you or others send.-- James of Rutland.
-- END included message