From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 09:25:07 EDT
> Half correct. I define you a conspirator because you plot and scheme
> and contrive against the law of this land.
Sonja, that summation is not simply unfair, but also contradicts the content of your writings which claims not to imply unlawfulness.
The members of House Rising may be in a conspiracy, they may scheme, they may plot, they may contrive. But neither their ideals nor their actions are against the law of the land. This is precisely the type of implication that Zen complained about in his response to you. While you might find a definition of the word "against" to mean otherwise, one cannot, in good conscience, deny that the phrase "against the law" is most commonly used to define
illegal activity.
To lobby against the test of worthiness is no more illegal than to use the test. The "law of the land" does nothing more than lie out the Overlord's ability to use it. It does not say how often it should be employed, under what circumstances or if it should be brought against a challenger at all. Therefore, there is no "law" either for or against its use to be broken here.
Further more, as I myself have claimed for years, simply because a man may do a thing, does mean that he should. When a House organizes to bring this claim forward, it is not against the law, it is in addition to it. They are a lobby for change, no more illegal or against the law than those who lobby against the use of capital punishment in lands where it is employed.
Obviously you have issue with the ideals of House Rising, hence every descriptive word you have used has a negative connotation, as you have already admitted. Understandable when one holds an opposite stance (though I'd thought it beholden unto members of the press to at least attempt an unbiased stance) but such words as patriot and humanist, progressive and visionary are just as fitting.
They have defined what they believe to be against the nature of the Duel of Swords and stated an intent to attempt change through activities perfectly legal and allowable under the standards and traditions. It is little more than the topic they have chosen and the individual who currently embodies that topic which makes their stance condemned instead of lauded.
Respectfully,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
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: khrystawlf@aol.com (KhrystaWlf)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 10:02:26 EDT
Sonja... I couldn't help but notice this in your post.
>>>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<<<<
Now, I'm not from Earth myself, but my husband Zachary is. He's what some would call a revolutionary.... and what some would call a patriot..... and apparently what some would call a rabblerouser. Because of his intense political views regarding tyranny in all of it's myrid forms, I've learned a great deal of Earth's history lately...
Tell me Sonja... Would not have George Washinton, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and some of the other *founding fathers* of one of the largest countries of Earth have been classified as little more than *Rabblerousers* by King George of that little country England......
Just a thought....
Khrys
Date: 13 Sep 1998 10:02:26 EDT
Sonja... I couldn't help but notice this in your post.
>>>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<<<<
Now, I'm not from Earth myself, but my husband Zachary is. He's what some would call a revolutionary.... and what some would call a patriot..... and apparently what some would call a rabblerouser. Because of his intense political views regarding tyranny in all of it's myrid forms, I've learned a great deal of Earth's history lately...
Tell me Sonja... Would not have George Washinton, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and some of the other *founding fathers* of one of the largest countries of Earth have been classified as little more than *Rabblerousers* by King George of that little country England......
Just a thought....
Khrys
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 11:19:25 EDT
:: Walking back to the boards, his eyes caught this line of posts. Having seen who started it, he shrugged. Twas not really a matter of what people said or write. He knew House Rising was the only ones doing something right now while the others who were complaining about the past were not willing to make a future. Sighing, he moved on to the next set of posts, wondering if they had a better intent then this set. ::
Date: 13 Sep 1998 11:19:25 EDT
:: Walking back to the boards, his eyes caught this line of posts. Having seen who started it, he shrugged. Twas not really a matter of what people said or write. He knew House Rising was the only ones doing something right now while the others who were complaining about the past were not willing to make a future. Sighing, he moved on to the next set of posts, wondering if they had a better intent then this set. ::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zachrywulf@aol.com (ZachryWulf)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 13:16:57 EDT
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sonja
I am Surprised that somebody from earth would fail to recognize the value of rabble rousers. Yes! Those that are bucking the system are rabble rousers. Where I came from America, rabble rousers were recognized for what they could interject, as well as what they did to test our values systems. If we have a value system that can’t stand against those that might question it than it isn’t any good is it? The term rabble rousers was used by Gage
at Lexington and Concorde when they came after the colonials weapons. Gage was routed for his insolence towards free thinking. The Founding Fathers of my country, when they began the revolution believed in it enough that they said "We will either win or hang together." They realized that people aren’t infallible and built I many safeguards to the system as possible to allow the rabble rousers free reign. One of them was the second amendment (the
right to keep and bare arms). Many of them realized that eventually any system of government begins to corrupt because of selfishness. Thomas Jefferson once said of the second amendment "The real beauty of the second amendment is that it means nothing until they try to take it away." When they tried to take it away, trouble began to brew in deep undercurrents in our society. The problem with it initially was that the people had nobody that agreed
with them except for the various hate groups. That changed rather quickly and they learned from the hate groups to keep quiet. The hate groups had been very vocal and were easily dealt with. The silent majority as we called them really did a number on the Government when they tried to actually confiscate those weapons. They passed many little laws at first. Each side of the political spectrum would disarm the other in bits and pieces until they had
disarmed themselves. Thomas Jefferson had something to say about that as well "Don’t be too happy when your enemies rights are taken away just because it suits you at the time. Because when the political wind changes and it always does, you will find you have also taken away your own rights as well". Many of them said similar things. Because they recognized the value of the rabble rouser. Somebody that disagrees with us actually forces us to think
and evaluate. Free speech was part of our Constitution as well and for the same reasons. As if that wasn’t enough they also wrote the Bill of Rights allowing the people to tear it all down and start over again should it get out of control. Because they saw the value of rabble rousers.
Nothing in life is easy. On earth we had a group of people that were totally for nature and nature as a placid and peaceful place devoid of strife. They didn’t have a clue at all. Nature is a violent place where Eagles shove their weaker sibling out to the nest (When mommy and daddy are away so they will have it all. Those that are parents can relate to the sibling doing it while you aren’t looking.) Animals are always on a climb and decline
in nature. So it is with political beliefs and systems as well as people.
Life and nature are a proving ground for concepts. Argument and war as unpleasant as they are provide real change and a test as to the values or concepts we hold dear. We learn from those we disagree with and we grow, if we allow it.
I realize that the word honor gets thrown around in here a lot, but here I go. Who has more honor, one who fights for what he thinks is right and goes against the status quo, or one who stands with the many because they can’t stand change or feel they will be more likely to win out of sheer momentum?
Zachary Wûlfgar
§ Wolfen §
Date: 13 Sep 1998 13:16:57 EDT
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sonja
I am Surprised that somebody from earth would fail to recognize the value of rabble rousers. Yes! Those that are bucking the system are rabble rousers. Where I came from America, rabble rousers were recognized for what they could interject, as well as what they did to test our values systems. If we have a value system that can’t stand against those that might question it than it isn’t any good is it? The term rabble rousers was used by Gage
at Lexington and Concorde when they came after the colonials weapons. Gage was routed for his insolence towards free thinking. The Founding Fathers of my country, when they began the revolution believed in it enough that they said "We will either win or hang together." They realized that people aren’t infallible and built I many safeguards to the system as possible to allow the rabble rousers free reign. One of them was the second amendment (the
right to keep and bare arms). Many of them realized that eventually any system of government begins to corrupt because of selfishness. Thomas Jefferson once said of the second amendment "The real beauty of the second amendment is that it means nothing until they try to take it away." When they tried to take it away, trouble began to brew in deep undercurrents in our society. The problem with it initially was that the people had nobody that agreed
with them except for the various hate groups. That changed rather quickly and they learned from the hate groups to keep quiet. The hate groups had been very vocal and were easily dealt with. The silent majority as we called them really did a number on the Government when they tried to actually confiscate those weapons. They passed many little laws at first. Each side of the political spectrum would disarm the other in bits and pieces until they had
disarmed themselves. Thomas Jefferson had something to say about that as well "Don’t be too happy when your enemies rights are taken away just because it suits you at the time. Because when the political wind changes and it always does, you will find you have also taken away your own rights as well". Many of them said similar things. Because they recognized the value of the rabble rouser. Somebody that disagrees with us actually forces us to think
and evaluate. Free speech was part of our Constitution as well and for the same reasons. As if that wasn’t enough they also wrote the Bill of Rights allowing the people to tear it all down and start over again should it get out of control. Because they saw the value of rabble rousers.
Nothing in life is easy. On earth we had a group of people that were totally for nature and nature as a placid and peaceful place devoid of strife. They didn’t have a clue at all. Nature is a violent place where Eagles shove their weaker sibling out to the nest (When mommy and daddy are away so they will have it all. Those that are parents can relate to the sibling doing it while you aren’t looking.) Animals are always on a climb and decline
in nature. So it is with political beliefs and systems as well as people.
Life and nature are a proving ground for concepts. Argument and war as unpleasant as they are provide real change and a test as to the values or concepts we hold dear. We learn from those we disagree with and we grow, if we allow it.
I realize that the word honor gets thrown around in here a lot, but here I go. Who has more honor, one who fights for what he thinks is right and goes against the status quo, or one who stands with the many because they can’t stand change or feel they will be more likely to win out of sheer momentum?
Zachary Wûlfgar
§ Wolfen §
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: genperri@aol.com (Gen Perri)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 13:40:29 EDT
::slaps up a typed notice::
House Rising would also need some manner of driving intellect on the council to control it. Hell, they could have 12 out of the 13 rings, but if all of them are as hopeless as Evan, they won't get a thing done.
Dutifully signed,
-Every intellegent dueler in the realm
Date: 13 Sep 1998 13:40:29 EDT
::slaps up a typed notice::
House Rising would also need some manner of driving intellect on the council to control it. Hell, they could have 12 out of the 13 rings, but if all of them are as hopeless as Evan, they won't get a thing done.
Dutifully signed,
-Every intellegent dueler in the realm
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: genperri@aol.com (Gen Perri)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 13:41:52 EDT
Take cover, sports fans:
It's the Duel of Dictionaries!
-Perri.
Date: 13 Sep 1998 13:41:52 EDT
Take cover, sports fans:
It's the Duel of Dictionaries!
-Perri.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: lexigirl1@aol.com (LexiGirl1)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 14:03:58 EDT
::reads the letter by the many intelligent duelers and shakes her head thinking that hope comes in various forms and the even what seems to be the lowest person, can be the one that saves the day::
Date: 13 Sep 1998 14:03:58 EDT
::reads the letter by the many intelligent duelers and shakes her head thinking that hope comes in various forms and the even what seems to be the lowest person, can be the one that saves the day::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: lrdartides@aol.com (LrdArtides)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 15:09:19 EDT
::looking through the stack of posts he inadvertantly caused, he shakes his head.:: ::hastily scribbling down another sheet of paper, he tacks it to the board and walks away in sheer disgust::
Since it was my post that started this, I feel that I must say something. Look, when I first wrote "to the DoS community, Do we really want another member...." I wasn't implying that they were attempting to conspire (and I couldn't care less which definition you use). I meant only that to preserve equality and fairness within the council, you cannot have a large percentage of ring holders garenteed to vote one way or another simply based on
affilation to one house another. What we need on the council is fully capable ring holders who will vote their conscience regardless of "party lines." And that is exactly what this has become. House Rising has "risen" to become a political party. Sportsmanship? hmm....maybe. But it seems to me that sportsmanship is something proved in the ring, not in the council hall. Oh, and to the token members of HR below the rank of warlord, I have a
question: just how much does your opinion really count for? I have also noted that the only time you seem to speak up is when one of your ranking members is under fire. You raise your hand and say, "oh hey! Look at me! I am just a lowly M@A, or Commoner, etc..." Come on. Give it up.
Aerenth Artides
common and loving it.
Date: 13 Sep 1998 15:09:19 EDT
::looking through the stack of posts he inadvertantly caused, he shakes his head.:: ::hastily scribbling down another sheet of paper, he tacks it to the board and walks away in sheer disgust::
Since it was my post that started this, I feel that I must say something. Look, when I first wrote "to the DoS community, Do we really want another member...." I wasn't implying that they were attempting to conspire (and I couldn't care less which definition you use). I meant only that to preserve equality and fairness within the council, you cannot have a large percentage of ring holders garenteed to vote one way or another simply based on
affilation to one house another. What we need on the council is fully capable ring holders who will vote their conscience regardless of "party lines." And that is exactly what this has become. House Rising has "risen" to become a political party. Sportsmanship? hmm....maybe. But it seems to me that sportsmanship is something proved in the ring, not in the council hall. Oh, and to the token members of HR below the rank of warlord, I have a
question: just how much does your opinion really count for? I have also noted that the only time you seem to speak up is when one of your ranking members is under fire. You raise your hand and say, "oh hey! Look at me! I am just a lowly M@A, or Commoner, etc..." Come on. Give it up.
Aerenth Artides
common and loving it.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zen80s@aol.com (Zen 80s)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 15:30:37 EDT
::reads the typed notice, thinking it was probably written by one of the less intelligent duelers in the realm::
<m> This is so damned ridiculous.
Date: 13 Sep 1998 15:30:37 EDT
::reads the typed notice, thinking it was probably written by one of the less intelligent duelers in the realm::
<m> This is so damned ridiculous.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: humadragbn@aol.com (HumaDragbn)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 15:36:33 EDT
Can we grow up yet? This is getting just outright rediculous. Competent duelers acting like 2 year olds. Grow up sometime eh?
Huma
Date: 13 Sep 1998 15:36:33 EDT
Can we grow up yet? This is getting just outright rediculous. Competent duelers acting like 2 year olds. Grow up sometime eh?
Huma
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rolandsal@aol.com (Roland Sal)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 15:37:06 EDT
Zachary,
It would appear your placement with the word 'honor' in the last section of your previous post is a bit off. Honorable would have been to ride out your mistakes of past(such as claiming loyality to the Overlord, if you saw that as a mistake) and live up to your promises of loyality untill that person was no longer in position to claim such a thing. I would think courage would be a wiser word used for that sentence.
Also, a comment. I've done a bit of research on Earth's past as well, and if you believe that House Rising was as unfairly treated as the founding fathers of your country was by their previous government, I would have to say you are mistaken. Instead of using their right of free speaking to influence the ruling government's views.(which seems to be granted freely, since the Overlord has not voiced a dislike for it) They have went so far as to
threaten to use force to bring *their* views upon the community in whole(by stepping in for any challenger to the Overlord). Sportsmanship or not, when someone will force me to believe what they say is true, I will oppose, as I have done in the past.
Roland Sal Roa
::with a sigh, he wonders why he continues to keep these posts up... with that, he headed off, his ship would leave on the morrow... there was prepartions to be done::
Date: 13 Sep 1998 15:37:06 EDT
Zachary,
It would appear your placement with the word 'honor' in the last section of your previous post is a bit off. Honorable would have been to ride out your mistakes of past(such as claiming loyality to the Overlord, if you saw that as a mistake) and live up to your promises of loyality untill that person was no longer in position to claim such a thing. I would think courage would be a wiser word used for that sentence.
Also, a comment. I've done a bit of research on Earth's past as well, and if you believe that House Rising was as unfairly treated as the founding fathers of your country was by their previous government, I would have to say you are mistaken. Instead of using their right of free speaking to influence the ruling government's views.(which seems to be granted freely, since the Overlord has not voiced a dislike for it) They have went so far as to
threaten to use force to bring *their* views upon the community in whole(by stepping in for any challenger to the Overlord). Sportsmanship or not, when someone will force me to believe what they say is true, I will oppose, as I have done in the past.
Roland Sal Roa
::with a sigh, he wonders why he continues to keep these posts up... with that, he headed off, his ship would leave on the morrow... there was prepartions to be done::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: maxim128@aol.com (Maxim128)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 15:37:36 EDT
"just how much does your opinion really count for? I have also noted that the only time you seem to speak up is when one of your ranking members is under fire. You raise your hand and say, "oh hey! Look at me! I am just a lowly M@A, or Commoner, etc..." Come on. Give it up. "
Artides,
Although I am not a less rank than a warlord, my brother is, and he is in the House Rising. Maybe you should ask that question in his direction. Cletus, my brother, talks more than I do most of the time. It seems to me that you don't know half of what you talk about.
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
House Rising
Date: 13 Sep 1998 15:37:36 EDT
"just how much does your opinion really count for? I have also noted that the only time you seem to speak up is when one of your ranking members is under fire. You raise your hand and say, "oh hey! Look at me! I am just a lowly M@A, or Commoner, etc..." Come on. Give it up. "
Artides,
Although I am not a less rank than a warlord, my brother is, and he is in the House Rising. Maybe you should ask that question in his direction. Cletus, my brother, talks more than I do most of the time. It seems to me that you don't know half of what you talk about.
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
House Rising
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: carnage669@aol.com (Carnage669)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 16:14:07 EDT
::reads all of the posts thouroughly then comes opon Artides post::
::picks up a quill and starts to write something....looks at it, and decides against it::
Maybe it tis best to keep me mouth shut...for now
::Cumbles up the paper and eats it::
((Need I say it?? I will anyway...not a post))
Date: 13 Sep 1998 16:14:07 EDT
::reads all of the posts thouroughly then comes opon Artides post::
::picks up a quill and starts to write something....looks at it, and decides against it::
Maybe it tis best to keep me mouth shut...for now
::Cumbles up the paper and eats it::
((Need I say it?? I will anyway...not a post))
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 16:45:19 EDT
Huma, as long as slander isn't used, I don't think there is a problem (granted, some have attacked, but I'm trying to put in my opinion without attacking). That's my opinion; no attack intended.
To further one of my opinions, there was something Roland wrote that I felt I had to respond to. We've had this subject brought up before, and the thread was started by Avery; Honor, and it's meaning.
Roland stated that it would be more honorable to keep allegiance to a title as long as that person holds it. Some analogies state otherwise:
a) the person you swear loyalty to may be an illusion. You could claim undying loyalty to a man who says he will lay his life down for you. Why maintain a loyalty when you find out the person isn't the one you swore loyalty to?
b) some may say it's a "commitment" when you swear loyalty to the overlord, but isn't the DoS also a commitment? I feel it's a stronger commitment, when you hold a ring, because the ring symbolizes the intensity of one (or two, depending if someone intercedes for the baron) battles which determines whether or not you win. When one forfeits their ring (or crown, for that matter), would it be dishonorable if they felt they just can't enjoy DoS
anymore?
The fact is, Dalamar and I have a mutual loyalty. If one ends, betrays, or disgraces the loyalty, then the other certainly shouldn't be expected to keep it up. That would be called "one sided".
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 13 Sep 1998 16:45:19 EDT
Huma, as long as slander isn't used, I don't think there is a problem (granted, some have attacked, but I'm trying to put in my opinion without attacking). That's my opinion; no attack intended.
To further one of my opinions, there was something Roland wrote that I felt I had to respond to. We've had this subject brought up before, and the thread was started by Avery; Honor, and it's meaning.
Roland stated that it would be more honorable to keep allegiance to a title as long as that person holds it. Some analogies state otherwise:
a) the person you swear loyalty to may be an illusion. You could claim undying loyalty to a man who says he will lay his life down for you. Why maintain a loyalty when you find out the person isn't the one you swore loyalty to?
b) some may say it's a "commitment" when you swear loyalty to the overlord, but isn't the DoS also a commitment? I feel it's a stronger commitment, when you hold a ring, because the ring symbolizes the intensity of one (or two, depending if someone intercedes for the baron) battles which determines whether or not you win. When one forfeits their ring (or crown, for that matter), would it be dishonorable if they felt they just can't enjoy DoS
anymore?
The fact is, Dalamar and I have a mutual loyalty. If one ends, betrays, or disgraces the loyalty, then the other certainly shouldn't be expected to keep it up. That would be called "one sided".
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: lrdartides@aol.com (LrdArtides)
Date: 13 Sep 1998 17:15:52 EDT
::Rifles quickly through the some 44 odd posts on this subject...:: hmmm....I see perci, magnus, zen...even avery, but lookee here...no cletus. ::shrugs and walks away::
Date: 13 Sep 1998 17:15:52 EDT
::Rifles quickly through the some 44 odd posts on this subject...:: hmmm....I see perci, magnus, zen...even avery, but lookee here...no cletus. ::shrugs and walks away::