From: zen80s@aol.com (Zen 80s)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 13:28:44 EDT
All I have to say is:
Besides get three rings, what have we DONE that makes you think we are such conspirators?
If I can get an answer to that, then perhaps I can help you, but your only evidence that we are conspirators is that we have three rings.
These accusations are totally unfounded.
Zen
I was just struck by a thought..
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sonjasavge@aol.com (SonjaSavge)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 15:23:19 EDT
Zen asks: "Besides get three rings, what have we DONE that makes you think we are such conspirators?"
On 8/8/98, Percival Marchand du Clermont stated "We will oppose the Test of Worthiness without fail or partiality, regardless of the popularity or unpopularity of the challenger. We will champion challengers against the Overlord's Intercession, again impartially and without prejudice, because we respect the right of all to challenge. Finally, we will oppose any Overlord who does not respect our opinions and at least be willing to discuss them calmly
and honorably without recourse to either dogma or personal insult."
To conspire means, at it's very basic definition, to join in agreement to achieve a common goal. It is currently connoted to mean a few people coming together to scheme and plot toward realizing a certain goal. In this instance, You, Zen Rising, are conspiring with other members of House Rising, to "oppose the Test of Worthiness..." (read above quoted material again).
Perhaps members of House Rising and its supporters feel uncomfortable with the negative connotations of what it means to conspire. I would suggest, then, they refrain from making such mission statements.
History has shown, even here in Rhydin, that regardless of the intent of the small group, when the public perceives a conspiracy (a scheme, a plot), it will oppose it.
Count me as one of the populus. I do not need this group to decide for me what is right and what is wrong. I oppose House Rising's conspiracy!
Sonja Savage
Member of the Community
Date: 12 Sep 1998 15:23:19 EDT
Zen asks: "Besides get three rings, what have we DONE that makes you think we are such conspirators?"
On 8/8/98, Percival Marchand du Clermont stated "We will oppose the Test of Worthiness without fail or partiality, regardless of the popularity or unpopularity of the challenger. We will champion challengers against the Overlord's Intercession, again impartially and without prejudice, because we respect the right of all to challenge. Finally, we will oppose any Overlord who does not respect our opinions and at least be willing to discuss them calmly
and honorably without recourse to either dogma or personal insult."
To conspire means, at it's very basic definition, to join in agreement to achieve a common goal. It is currently connoted to mean a few people coming together to scheme and plot toward realizing a certain goal. In this instance, You, Zen Rising, are conspiring with other members of House Rising, to "oppose the Test of Worthiness..." (read above quoted material again).
Perhaps members of House Rising and its supporters feel uncomfortable with the negative connotations of what it means to conspire. I would suggest, then, they refrain from making such mission statements.
History has shown, even here in Rhydin, that regardless of the intent of the small group, when the public perceives a conspiracy (a scheme, a plot), it will oppose it.
Count me as one of the populus. I do not need this group to decide for me what is right and what is wrong. I oppose House Rising's conspiracy!
Sonja Savage
Member of the Community
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zen80s@aol.com (Zen 80s)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 15:41:59 EDT
conspire. v.t. plan secretly as a group.
unite. v.t., v.i. join into one group or entity.
We oppose the test. Naturally we oppose the views of someone whose views conflict with ours. When the quoted comment was said, Dalamar used the test rather frequently. Naturally, we opposed that. But we made our views and intentions very public and known. There was nothing done "secretly".
I don't see any "conspiracy" in holding similar views. Your definition of "conspire" sounds like the definition of "unite" to me. We held common views and we united under them. We did not "conspire", for we have done nothing in secret.
And I CERTAINLY don't see anywhere that any one of us "decided for you what is right and what is wrong".
Zen
Date: 12 Sep 1998 15:41:59 EDT
conspire. v.t. plan secretly as a group.
unite. v.t., v.i. join into one group or entity.
We oppose the test. Naturally we oppose the views of someone whose views conflict with ours. When the quoted comment was said, Dalamar used the test rather frequently. Naturally, we opposed that. But we made our views and intentions very public and known. There was nothing done "secretly".
I don't see any "conspiracy" in holding similar views. Your definition of "conspire" sounds like the definition of "unite" to me. We held common views and we united under them. We did not "conspire", for we have done nothing in secret.
And I CERTAINLY don't see anywhere that any one of us "decided for you what is right and what is wrong".
Zen
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sonjasavge@aol.com (SonjaSavge)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 15:54:11 EDT
Conspire: vb [ME conspiren, fr. MF conspirer, fr. L conspirare to breathe together, agree, conspire fr. com- + spirare to breathe - more at SPIRIT] vt (14c) : PLOT, CONTRIVE ~ vi 1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end. b : SCHEME 2 : to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances
conspired to defeat his efforts>
Bold emphasis is mine. Please also look up the word "conspiration."
From Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1985 by Merriam-Webster Inc.
Sonja
((Sonja is a modern day human from Earth))
Date: 12 Sep 1998 15:54:11 EDT
Conspire: vb [ME conspiren, fr. MF conspirer, fr. L conspirare to breathe together, agree, conspire fr. com- + spirare to breathe - more at SPIRIT] vt (14c) : PLOT, CONTRIVE ~ vi 1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end. b : SCHEME 2 : to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances
conspired to defeat his efforts>
Bold emphasis is mine. Please also look up the word "conspiration."
From Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1985 by Merriam-Webster Inc.
Sonja
((Sonja is a modern day human from Earth))
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zen80s@aol.com (Zen 80s)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 16:05:16 EDT
You define us as conspirators by definition 2 of the word "conspire".
But you wish to label us conspirators as definition 1a of the word "conspire" sees it. We act in harmony towards our end, but you wish it to say that we do things unlawfully and secretly.
And you'll notice the example of conspire for definition 2 uses circumstances, not people. That is because that definition of conspire is not generally used with people, whereas definition 1a is.
You define us as conspirators because we work together. You IMPLY that we conspire as to do things secretly and unlawfully.
Zen
Date: 12 Sep 1998 16:05:16 EDT
You define us as conspirators by definition 2 of the word "conspire".
But you wish to label us conspirators as definition 1a of the word "conspire" sees it. We act in harmony towards our end, but you wish it to say that we do things unlawfully and secretly.
And you'll notice the example of conspire for definition 2 uses circumstances, not people. That is because that definition of conspire is not generally used with people, whereas definition 1a is.
You define us as conspirators because we work together. You IMPLY that we conspire as to do things secretly and unlawfully.
Zen
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rolandsal@aol.com (Roland Sal)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 16:25:59 EDT
A question for those Rising Renegades, and Baron Blade,
Each of you knew about Dalamar's polices, for he has practiced them frequently. Most certainly you, Baron Zen, would have known your's and Dalamar's views differed regarding the Test... haven't you been a standing member of this community for over two years now? Well before Dalamar's reign. If your change in allignment, from Loyal to Renegade, then opening of a house baring your last name which directly opposes the Overlord you swore loyality to
even when you knew his views on certain matters your house claims to oppose now isn't classified as conspiratorial, then I am totally blind.
Roland Sal Roa
Date: 12 Sep 1998 16:25:59 EDT
A question for those Rising Renegades, and Baron Blade,
Each of you knew about Dalamar's polices, for he has practiced them frequently. Most certainly you, Baron Zen, would have known your's and Dalamar's views differed regarding the Test... haven't you been a standing member of this community for over two years now? Well before Dalamar's reign. If your change in allignment, from Loyal to Renegade, then opening of a house baring your last name which directly opposes the Overlord you swore loyality to
even when you knew his views on certain matters your house claims to oppose now isn't classified as conspiratorial, then I am totally blind.
Roland Sal Roa
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zen80s@aol.com (Zen 80s)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 16:53:37 EDT
For the greater part of the last two years I have not been around. Thus, I was not around for much of the overlord's reign.
I found the overlord to be a fine man when I met him-- I still do, actually-- and based my original alignment on that. Afterward was when I learned more of his policies, especially after checking the histories which showed a consistent pattern of using the test.
It was then that I decided to make the change.
Perhaps this shall help you understand more. If you choose to understand it more, that is.
Zen
Date: 12 Sep 1998 16:53:37 EDT
For the greater part of the last two years I have not been around. Thus, I was not around for much of the overlord's reign.
I found the overlord to be a fine man when I met him-- I still do, actually-- and based my original alignment on that. Afterward was when I learned more of his policies, especially after checking the histories which showed a consistent pattern of using the test.
It was then that I decided to make the change.
Perhaps this shall help you understand more. If you choose to understand it more, that is.
Zen
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: shivblade@aol.com (SHIV BLADE)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 16:54:06 EDT
In my letter I wrote to the communtiy on June 19th, after I recieved my ring, I stated this about my loyalty to Dal....
......Second is that while i have only been here a short time, i have seen only honorable actions doen by our Overlord. And
so i will honor him, and his actions and proclaim myself loyal to him. I shall remain loyal to him until he comes forth with actions that are to be judged unhonorable. Yet i dont forsee that happening......
Well Baron Roa... it did happen. Our stance on neutrality came to be different. I learned of it after i took the ring. That is why i changed. I stated way back then that i would change if something came up to be different between us. I always follow through on my statements. That is why you will see me issue Challenge to Dal like i said i would.... When the time is right.
Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 6th
Date: 12 Sep 1998 16:54:06 EDT
In my letter I wrote to the communtiy on June 19th, after I recieved my ring, I stated this about my loyalty to Dal....
......Second is that while i have only been here a short time, i have seen only honorable actions doen by our Overlord. And
so i will honor him, and his actions and proclaim myself loyal to him. I shall remain loyal to him until he comes forth with actions that are to be judged unhonorable. Yet i dont forsee that happening......
Well Baron Roa... it did happen. Our stance on neutrality came to be different. I learned of it after i took the ring. That is why i changed. I stated way back then that i would change if something came up to be different between us. I always follow through on my statements. That is why you will see me issue Challenge to Dal like i said i would.... When the time is right.
Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 6th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rolandsal@aol.com (Roland Sal)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 17:17:29 EDT
Baron Zen,
My pardons but your post only succeeded in confusing me further. You were unsure on your political stance with Overlord, and yet chose to be a Loyal even when it was possible to take a neutral stance untill you reached a decision? Some would find that unbecoming of a man who would give away his loyalities so blindly.
Baron Blade,
You also deserve my pardons, for you did state that as I now remember. However, didn't you switch to neutral because of it? Prime example of what Baron Zen should have done while he reviewed the facts on our Overlord, as you didn't take a stance while you debated on what to do about your loyalities to Dalamar.
Roland Sal Roa
Date: 12 Sep 1998 17:17:29 EDT
Baron Zen,
My pardons but your post only succeeded in confusing me further. You were unsure on your political stance with Overlord, and yet chose to be a Loyal even when it was possible to take a neutral stance untill you reached a decision? Some would find that unbecoming of a man who would give away his loyalities so blindly.
Baron Blade,
You also deserve my pardons, for you did state that as I now remember. However, didn't you switch to neutral because of it? Prime example of what Baron Zen should have done while he reviewed the facts on our Overlord, as you didn't take a stance while you debated on what to do about your loyalities to Dalamar.
Roland Sal Roa
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zen80s@aol.com (Zen 80s)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 17:21:31 EDT
I was loyal because I found the man to be very noble, skilled, and a fine example to the rest of our community.
That he is, but after he did some things I did not agree with I changed my stance.
Zen
Date: 12 Sep 1998 17:21:31 EDT
I was loyal because I found the man to be very noble, skilled, and a fine example to the rest of our community.
That he is, but after he did some things I did not agree with I changed my stance.
Zen
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: shivblade@aol.com (SHIV BLADE)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 18:04:16 EDT
Your apology is well noted Baron Roa
Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 6th
Date: 12 Sep 1998 18:04:16 EDT
Your apology is well noted Baron Roa
Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 6th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 18:10:47 EDT
Simple point I would like to raise...
Many people oppose the Test of Worthiness, myself included, but until the rules change it is the right of the OverLord to use it.
Does that make me a conspirator? Well, perhaps it does. The only difference between me and the members of House Rising that oppose the test is the fact the most of them if not all have far greater skill with their blades in the ring than I making me less noticed in that respect.
Colleen MacLeod-Lasher
Queuekeeper and Commoner of DoS
Date: 12 Sep 1998 18:10:47 EDT
Simple point I would like to raise...
Many people oppose the Test of Worthiness, myself included, but until the rules change it is the right of the OverLord to use it.
Does that make me a conspirator? Well, perhaps it does. The only difference between me and the members of House Rising that oppose the test is the fact the most of them if not all have far greater skill with their blades in the ring than I making me less noticed in that respect.
Colleen MacLeod-Lasher
Queuekeeper and Commoner of DoS
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jessetroyn@aol.com (JesseTroyn)
Date: 12 Sep 1998 18:44:33 EDT
::walks by, taking a drag off his cig as he reads through the posts, mutters and kicks some dirt over all the lines drawn in the sand, walks away::
Politics.. what a waste of time. <m> I could take all of 'em...
Date: 12 Sep 1998 18:44:33 EDT
::walks by, taking a drag off his cig as he reads through the posts, mutters and kicks some dirt over all the lines drawn in the sand, walks away::
Politics.. what a waste of time. <m> I could take all of 'em...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sonjasavge@aol.com (SonjaSavge)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 02:14:38 EDT
Zen Rising,
you said: "But you wish to label us conspirators as definition 1a of the word "conspire" sees it. We act in harmony towards our end, but you wish it to say that we do things unlawfully and secretly."
No, I quoted completely and directly from the dictionary I have on hand. I did not wish to say you do things unlawfully or secretly. Please kindly read again and you will see exactly which part I bolded. I also claim you plot, contrive, and scheme. I also stated that history has shown that the general population revolts against the plots and schemes of the few, no matter what the cause.
"And you'll notice the example of conspire for definition 2 uses circumstances, not people. That is because that definition of conspire is not generally used with people, whereas definition 1a is."
This is a very foolish thing for you to say. It was but one example. Do you think the dictionary should include several examples? Isn't the dictionary long enough as it is? It is either very narrow-minded of you to think that you can only use the word "conspire" when in regarding circumstances, or you are grasping for straws. Either way, it makes no sense. When I look up the word "effect," an example is used "<the law goes into ~ next week.>"
By your logic, I can only use the word "effect" when I'm talking about law, or time. Shall I find another example for you?
"You IMPLY that we conspire as to do things secretly and unlawfully."
No, that is what you inferred. I included the definition to show that "to conspire" did NOT always mean in secret or unlawfully but that there IS a negative connotation to it.
"You define us as conspirators because we work together."
Half correct. I define you a conspirator because you plot and scheme and contrive against the law of this land.
Sonja
Date: 13 Sep 1998 02:14:38 EDT
Zen Rising,
you said: "But you wish to label us conspirators as definition 1a of the word "conspire" sees it. We act in harmony towards our end, but you wish it to say that we do things unlawfully and secretly."
No, I quoted completely and directly from the dictionary I have on hand. I did not wish to say you do things unlawfully or secretly. Please kindly read again and you will see exactly which part I bolded. I also claim you plot, contrive, and scheme. I also stated that history has shown that the general population revolts against the plots and schemes of the few, no matter what the cause.
"And you'll notice the example of conspire for definition 2 uses circumstances, not people. That is because that definition of conspire is not generally used with people, whereas definition 1a is."
This is a very foolish thing for you to say. It was but one example. Do you think the dictionary should include several examples? Isn't the dictionary long enough as it is? It is either very narrow-minded of you to think that you can only use the word "conspire" when in regarding circumstances, or you are grasping for straws. Either way, it makes no sense. When I look up the word "effect," an example is used "<the law goes into ~ next week.>"
By your logic, I can only use the word "effect" when I'm talking about law, or time. Shall I find another example for you?
"You IMPLY that we conspire as to do things secretly and unlawfully."
No, that is what you inferred. I included the definition to show that "to conspire" did NOT always mean in secret or unlawfully but that there IS a negative connotation to it.
"You define us as conspirators because we work together."
Half correct. I define you a conspirator because you plot and scheme and contrive against the law of this land.
Sonja
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sonjasavge@aol.com (SonjaSavge)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 02:27:55 EDT
Collie says, "Many people oppose the Test of Worthiness, myself included, but until the rules change it is the right of the OverLord to use it.
Does that make me a conspirator? Well, perhaps it does. The only difference between me and the members of House Rising that oppose the test is the fact the most of them if not all have far greater skill with their blades in the ring than I making me less noticed in that respect. "
If you are not organizing with a small group of people to oppose the right of the Overlord, then no, you are not conspiring with them.
In many manners, having blade skill is the only "right" in Rhydin. However, some of use little people, those of us who are not as skilled with the blade, still revolt against conspiracy, tyranny (no, I am not accusing House Rising of this, it's just an example), and injustice (same thing).
But do not be lead to believe I have no defenses. I have a pen, and I have a voice. My own world history has shown me to never ignore the few rabblerousers, because if they are given free rein, many times, horrid things happen. I never brush them off, because too many times they have lulled the populous into complacency because we say, "oh, that doesn't affect me, it can never happen to me." It will always happen to those that turn a blind eye
and a closed mouth.
Always keep a close eye on the few who claim to know what is right for the rest of us.
Sonja
Date: 13 Sep 1998 02:27:55 EDT
Collie says, "Many people oppose the Test of Worthiness, myself included, but until the rules change it is the right of the OverLord to use it.
Does that make me a conspirator? Well, perhaps it does. The only difference between me and the members of House Rising that oppose the test is the fact the most of them if not all have far greater skill with their blades in the ring than I making me less noticed in that respect. "
If you are not organizing with a small group of people to oppose the right of the Overlord, then no, you are not conspiring with them.
In many manners, having blade skill is the only "right" in Rhydin. However, some of use little people, those of us who are not as skilled with the blade, still revolt against conspiracy, tyranny (no, I am not accusing House Rising of this, it's just an example), and injustice (same thing).
But do not be lead to believe I have no defenses. I have a pen, and I have a voice. My own world history has shown me to never ignore the few rabblerousers, because if they are given free rein, many times, horrid things happen. I never brush them off, because too many times they have lulled the populous into complacency because we say, "oh, that doesn't affect me, it can never happen to me." It will always happen to those that turn a blind eye
and a closed mouth.
Always keep a close eye on the few who claim to know what is right for the rest of us.
Sonja