Re: Principality why do you want to leave

[Corun MacAnndra <corun@access.digex.net>]

Poster: Corun MacAnndra <corun@access.digex.net>

Eogan wrote:
> 
> Those of you who read my posting in response to the TNNK thingy were quick
> to point out some stuff.  Allow me to clarify some points.

First and foremost there is no such thing as a TNNK movement. There never
has been. This is a myth. There is only a movement to form a Northern
Principality. To continue to say otherwise without proof is wrong, pure
and simple.

> I do not represent the entire south nor do a I speak for them.  However,
> the tone and the frustration that you my have read in my note is
> representative of a good portion of the southerners.  Every time the
> subject of the TNNK comes up things like the following are said;
>
> "They (the people pushing the TNNK) are going to make this happen whether
> we like it or not." or "They want their own kingdom so they can have a
> northern king, and they won't stop till they get it"  or "They say they
> want just to form a principality that they don't want a kingdom.  Bull. The
> only reason they are doing this is to eventually form a Northern Kingdom."

Please define a "good portion". Out of 100 southerners, how many can you
substantially prove maintain this opinion? Out of all the population of
the southern Kingdom how many can you substantially prove maintain this
opinion. And out of that number, how many can substantially prove that
this opinion is truly informed, and not merely a matter of emotions
running amok?

> Now you may think these people are hopelessly uninformed but in the effort
> to communication it is important that you understand the underlying
> emotions. Before you jump on this, read those lines and think about them.
> Try to understand the hurt and frustration in them.  

The only hurt or frustration that exists in those hypothetical quotes
are seen only by those who choose to be hurt or frustrated. Neither you
nor anyone else who has been posting inflammatory allegations regarding
the attitudes and motives of those involved in the movement have been
able to substantially prove that such ascribed attitudes and motives
truly exist. They are sheer conjecture at this point.

> I think that most of the concern that I and others feel stems from the
> basic notion that the whole TNNP thing is now and has always been the first
> steps with the intention of forming a KINGDOM.  That is why I refer to this
> as the TNNK or the Northern Kingdom, it is not because I don't understand
> the process.

Prove that statment. Have you attended any of the meetings? Have you
subscribed to the newsletter (no you haven't, and I know since I publish
it and maintain the mailing list)? You can not make such statements without
proof positive. Who have you talked to specifically and what role do they
play in any of the committees? You say you understand the process, but
what you're actually claiming to understand are the motives of those who
are directly involved. You claim that there is an agenda. I ask you, what's
yours? Why are you personnally so bent on trying to slander people and
destroy this movement? And please, no rhetoric about it destroying the
Kingdom. I want to know your personal reasons for this.

> Based on the Kingdom premise how should we feel?  You guys are tearing away
> from us.  It will damage both groups for years to come.  Why do you want to
> leave us?  What is so bad about being together?  We don't want to leave
> you.  We think that Atlantia is the greatest kingdom in the world?  We
> think our strength lies in the combination of all our groups. Yet you seem
> to be doing everything it takes to separate yourselves from us. How do you
> expect us to feel about this?

How do you know unequivocally that it will damage both halves of the
Kingdom. Or even one half of it? And that's afterall what you're saying
here, so let's be realistic. You are claiming that a Northern P will
eventually destroy the southern half of the Kingdom. Why? Where's your
basis for this assumption? What proof do you have?

> I am willing to take any reproachment you collectively what to heap upon me
> if you first reread the paragraph about and honestly answer the questions. 
> 
> Now if your intention was to just form a happy little principality there
> wouldn't so much angst, but I don't think anyone really believes that's
> what this is all about.

It may not be what anyone in the south believes, but without direct proof
you only have an uniformed opinion.

> Now if we are to deal with this rationally it is important that we at least
> agree on certain terms. If you are forming a Kingdom than say so, and if
> you are then don't be surprised if the pieces you leave behind are hurt and
> resentful.

If we are going to deal with this rationally it is important that you 
cease making uniformed accusations. Name names. Tell us who you've spoken
to and what they've said. Provide the proof of your allegations, not just
emotional conjecture.

Eogan, I'm not telling you or anyone else not to discuss this. I'm simply
telling you and everyone else that it is wrong to accuse people without
proof. You are lumping everyone into one general category and you're doing
so without a shred of evidence beyond what you and a few people to whom
you've spoken feel.

And finally, there is a mailing list for the Principality. The reason
it was created was so the Merry Rose would not be inundated with just
such debates as these. Please use it and leave off the Rose in future.
The patrons there will appreciate it. Or do you want to be responsible
for anyone unsubscribing from it because of this discussion?

I am answering you on the Rose this time only. In future I will set the
followup to the Principality list. I ask you to do so before you reply
to me.

In service,
Corun



=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org