From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 20 Sep 1999 01:34:29 EDT
Well now.
It looks like G'nort has the right of it. In Lady Starfare's original post, she stated that Jaycy had not officially accepted the challenge that Lady Topaz had issued.
By the letter of the rules, this is correct. The then Baroness sent ler letter of acceptance, listing a time for the duel, only to the challenger and not to my office.
My only assertation here is, it was purely due to Lady Topaz' desire to duel for the Ring that this challenge was not held in forfeit by the Baroness.
Again, I salute the Lady Topaz for her honor and sportsmanship.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Official Protest
-
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: tinytopaz@aol.com (TinyTopaz)
Date: 20 Sep 1999 12:47:12 EDT
"My only assertation here is, it was purely due to Lady Topaz' desire to duel for the Ring that this challenge was not held in forfeit by the Baroness.
Again, I salute the Lady Topaz for her honor and sportsmanship."
Dear Drake,
Thank you for the compliment. As much as it would mean to me offered under different circumstances, in this instance I do not feel it is quite deserved.
In my selfish desire to want the Title only if l could prove myself worthy in the ring of challenge rather than to have it dumped into my lap by forfeit l have permitted knowingly for the rules to be broken and the fiend to get away with it. That l was confident l would beat the then Baroness Jaycy in a fair duel l can not consider an excuse. I failed.
Of course the official ruling could have been different and the ring could have gone to the next tourney. But Lord Evermedow was adamant he'd not punish the Baroness out of her ring for such a minor offense.
With respect,
Topaz
Date: 20 Sep 1999 12:47:12 EDT
"My only assertation here is, it was purely due to Lady Topaz' desire to duel for the Ring that this challenge was not held in forfeit by the Baroness.
Again, I salute the Lady Topaz for her honor and sportsmanship."
Dear Drake,
Thank you for the compliment. As much as it would mean to me offered under different circumstances, in this instance I do not feel it is quite deserved.
In my selfish desire to want the Title only if l could prove myself worthy in the ring of challenge rather than to have it dumped into my lap by forfeit l have permitted knowingly for the rules to be broken and the fiend to get away with it. That l was confident l would beat the then Baroness Jaycy in a fair duel l can not consider an excuse. I failed.
Of course the official ruling could have been different and the ring could have gone to the next tourney. But Lord Evermedow was adamant he'd not punish the Baroness out of her ring for such a minor offense.
With respect,
Topaz
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: elijaheagleecore@aol.com (ElijahEagleEcore)
Date: 20 Sep 1999 16:03:10 EDT
>But Lord Evermedow was adamant he'd not punish the Baroness out of her ring
>for such a minor offense.
>
It seems this sport loves to punish people for minor offenses. I believe there is a saying that goes to the effect of "let the players decide the game, not the officials." And just like many other venues, there is no consistency on how different people get treated.
As Guardian of the Seventh till Draco fails me,
~Elijah Eagle Ecore~
~Baron of Swords~
Date: 20 Sep 1999 16:03:10 EDT
>But Lord Evermedow was adamant he'd not punish the Baroness out of her ring
>for such a minor offense.
>
It seems this sport loves to punish people for minor offenses. I believe there is a saying that goes to the effect of "let the players decide the game, not the officials." And just like many other venues, there is no consistency on how different people get treated.
As Guardian of the Seventh till Draco fails me,
~Elijah Eagle Ecore~
~Baron of Swords~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 20 Sep 1999 21:49:26 EDT
Madame Silvertree,
I do thank thee for thine comments. Indeed Madame, by the letter of the rules the then Baroness cast them aside and tis seemin' that nae a one 'o th' 'senior' officials spoke upon th' matter, but 'eld their silence an' by doin' so didst condone t' deed. Madame Ashleana didst nae only disregard t' letter 'o th' rules 'o engagement, she ast well cast aside the verra spirit of what be the duels, though considerin' 'ow she came by t' Third Ring,
perhaps 'er callousness shouldst hae been expected.
Tis if'n I understand thee, Madame, thee aire stating that thee spoke with the Baroness after the duel wast fought and only then didst thee receive official notification of acceptance from the Baroness, yet thee spoke nae a word ta annaone knowing t'was another floutin' 'o the simplest of the rules 'o engagement with respect t' challenge. Tis thou claimed friendship fer both the challenger and the challenged, yet Madame, where wast thine
'onor in support of the duels and sportsmanship in the status as Standings Keeper?
Tis the Lady Topaz hast come forth and stated her reasons fer allowing th' duel t' take place. Her confidence in her skill with blade nae withstanding, she dost bear a modicum 'o fault in her pursuit o' the Third. Yet one mus' indeed wonder that the Supervisor of the Duels wouldst intimate to annaone let alone the challenger that he wouldst nae hold the then Baroness to the letter of the rules 'o engagement and seemingly intimated unta the Lady
Topaz that he wouldst interfer shouldst the matter be placed afore the Council for adjudication. Tis in this matter t'was nae a situation what required interpretation 'o some vagueness or contradiction, t'was a straightforeward matter 'o the challenged being required t' apprise both the challenged an' t' Standin's Keeper.
Elijah Eagle Ecore,
Tis assuredly thee wish th' past wouldst be swept aside ast if dinna matter, considering' yuir own 'istory, tis perhaps nae a surprise. Howe'er, let the historys show that indeed the Third Ring wast twice tainted by the former Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana. Wouldst certes thee then be wishin' all t' stand in silence an' by doin' so condon t' insidiousness 'o such?
Tis indeed e'en more curious th' Madame Ashleana wast an official 'o this grand sport an' wast twice permitted by other officials ta do ast she pleased wi' nae regard t' either th' letter 'o th' rules or t' spirit 'o th' duels, nor t' be called t' account by t' 'senior' officials fer 'er deeds whilst seemin'ly others were called t' account.
In ire, sadness and disgust,
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 20 Sep 1999 21:49:26 EDT
Madame Silvertree,
I do thank thee for thine comments. Indeed Madame, by the letter of the rules the then Baroness cast them aside and tis seemin' that nae a one 'o th' 'senior' officials spoke upon th' matter, but 'eld their silence an' by doin' so didst condone t' deed. Madame Ashleana didst nae only disregard t' letter 'o th' rules 'o engagement, she ast well cast aside the verra spirit of what be the duels, though considerin' 'ow she came by t' Third Ring,
perhaps 'er callousness shouldst hae been expected.
Tis if'n I understand thee, Madame, thee aire stating that thee spoke with the Baroness after the duel wast fought and only then didst thee receive official notification of acceptance from the Baroness, yet thee spoke nae a word ta annaone knowing t'was another floutin' 'o the simplest of the rules 'o engagement with respect t' challenge. Tis thou claimed friendship fer both the challenger and the challenged, yet Madame, where wast thine
'onor in support of the duels and sportsmanship in the status as Standings Keeper?
Tis the Lady Topaz hast come forth and stated her reasons fer allowing th' duel t' take place. Her confidence in her skill with blade nae withstanding, she dost bear a modicum 'o fault in her pursuit o' the Third. Yet one mus' indeed wonder that the Supervisor of the Duels wouldst intimate to annaone let alone the challenger that he wouldst nae hold the then Baroness to the letter of the rules 'o engagement and seemingly intimated unta the Lady
Topaz that he wouldst interfer shouldst the matter be placed afore the Council for adjudication. Tis in this matter t'was nae a situation what required interpretation 'o some vagueness or contradiction, t'was a straightforeward matter 'o the challenged being required t' apprise both the challenged an' t' Standin's Keeper.
Elijah Eagle Ecore,
Tis assuredly thee wish th' past wouldst be swept aside ast if dinna matter, considering' yuir own 'istory, tis perhaps nae a surprise. Howe'er, let the historys show that indeed the Third Ring wast twice tainted by the former Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana. Wouldst certes thee then be wishin' all t' stand in silence an' by doin' so condon t' insidiousness 'o such?
Tis indeed e'en more curious th' Madame Ashleana wast an official 'o this grand sport an' wast twice permitted by other officials ta do ast she pleased wi' nae regard t' either th' letter 'o th' rules or t' spirit 'o th' duels, nor t' be called t' account by t' 'senior' officials fer 'er deeds whilst seemin'ly others were called t' account.
In ire, sadness and disgust,
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 02:09:41 EDT
Lady Starfare.
I will clarify my stance on this, for your elucidation.
I told the Lady Topaz that, should the then Baroness not deliver to me a copy of her acceptance letter by the close of business on that coming Sunday that I would find her in forfeit of the challenge.
The Lady Topaz chose to duel the then Baroness despite what I had told her.
I see this as a similar situation, though not the same, as if a title holder were to fail to show up for a scheduled duel and the challenger to decide to allow for a rescheduling rather than have the title holder declared in forfeit.
As I have stated, if the duel had not taken place on that Sunday, and the then Baroness had still not given me a copy of her acceptance letter, I would have found her in forfeit of the challenge.
As the challenge was fought before the end of the one week period, I agree with the Lady Topaz and Master Evermeadow in the assertation that the duel was valid.
Further, I recall a conversation with the Lady Topaz that I took part in where she was apprised that she need not accept the results of that duel and that the Baroness could still have been found in forfeit of the challenge, yet Lady Topaz chose not to follow that option.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 21 Sep 1999 02:09:41 EDT
Lady Starfare.
I will clarify my stance on this, for your elucidation.
I told the Lady Topaz that, should the then Baroness not deliver to me a copy of her acceptance letter by the close of business on that coming Sunday that I would find her in forfeit of the challenge.
The Lady Topaz chose to duel the then Baroness despite what I had told her.
I see this as a similar situation, though not the same, as if a title holder were to fail to show up for a scheduled duel and the challenger to decide to allow for a rescheduling rather than have the title holder declared in forfeit.
As I have stated, if the duel had not taken place on that Sunday, and the then Baroness had still not given me a copy of her acceptance letter, I would have found her in forfeit of the challenge.
As the challenge was fought before the end of the one week period, I agree with the Lady Topaz and Master Evermeadow in the assertation that the duel was valid.
Further, I recall a conversation with the Lady Topaz that I took part in where she was apprised that she need not accept the results of that duel and that the Baroness could still have been found in forfeit of the challenge, yet Lady Topaz chose not to follow that option.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 04:40:42 EDT
Madame Silvertree
Didst nae thee apprise the Lady Topaz by missive that thee wouldst turn over unto the Assistant Supervisor and the Supervisor the matter when the Lady Topaz apprised thee and questioned thee about the fact that the then Baroness hae nae sent an official letter unto thee? Didst thee nae intimate that thee were friend unto both and dinna wish to make a ruling stating that thee dinna feel thee couldst offer an unbiased opinion? Didst thee nae
understand that the Lady Topaz specifically apprised thee that the match wast to take place upon the verra day she didst inquire of thee by missive? The Lady Topaz quite specifically asked if'n the duel wouldst be held ast being official considering that the then Baroness hae failed to make official her acceptance.
Now thee state thee didst speak with the Lady Topaz upon the verra day of the challenge telling her that if'n thee dinna receive a missive by "close of business" that thee wouldst find the Baroness t' be forfeit, seemingly disregarding the information thee were given ast to when the match wouldst be dueled. Tis the clear matter be that the Assistant Supervisor, Turinal Lodrehai Castle didst apprise the Lady Topaz that a missive wouldst be required
from the Baroness prior to the match ast well ast within the required one week timeframe. T'would seem thee either were nae aware of Turi's ruling and chose to interpret the matter e'en after stating thee wouldst nae rule, that or thee disregarded Turi's pronouncement.
Madame Silvertree, tis nae in the least similar t' the example thee present. Tis thee hae admitted thee did nae receive anna missive from the then Baroness prior to that duel. Master Evermeadow most clearly stated he hae nae made anna new ruling that the challenged ist nae required to apprise the Standings Keeper prior to a challenge duel.
Curiouser and curiouser, Madame. Tis seemin' t' me that the Lady Topaz quite clearly felt herself to be at a disadvantage fore in she hast stated that Master Evermeadow intimated to her that should she fail to appear for that match he wouldst nae consider the mere "mistake' of the then Baroness to abide by the rules of engagement reason to hold the Baroness in forfeit. Master Evermeadow hast yet to comment upon that specific question.
Tis quite clear thee offered the fact by thine own hand that thee couldst nae be unbiased in thine ruling in the matter, yet thee now offer the information that thee didst tell the Lady Topaz what thee wouldst do in the matter. What conversation dost make reference to, Madame, where in thee state the Lady Topaz wast apprised that she need nae accept the results of the duel? I should like to know when Master Evermeadow stated that he wouldst hold
the duel ast being valid without the missive being received prior to the duel for in thee hae stated thee aire in agreement with him. Based on thine comments and the statement that thee agree with Master Evermeadow, t'would seem that the requirement ast writ in the rules were set aside, though Master Evermeadow hast stated elsewise. Thee canna hae it both ways, Madame. Either thee dinna receive an official acceptance prior to that duel
whereby the then Baroness wast in default, or thee and Master Evermeadow hae made a ruling privily that such wast nae required prior to a challenger meeting the challenged in the ring.
Perhaps thee hae taken the word prior to nae mean before? By whom, Madame Silvertree, wouldst the Baroness possibly be found to be in forfeit? The Council? Perhaps, hae thee apprised the Council that thee were nae in receipt of an official acceptance from Madame Ashleana ast the duel wast called or immediately thereafter, the Council might have acted and called the Baroness to answer fer her deeds. Madame, I shall remind thee that
ast Standings Keeper, tis thee aire responsible for seeing that the rules aire followed prior to a challenge. Thee apparently chose nae to do such. I shall also note that Madame, thee seem to be placing the fault upon the challenger, the Lady Topaz. The Lady Topaz hast stated her stance ast t' why she continued her pursuit of the challenge and hast stated that she bears some blame for permitting the then Baroness to slip though the rules. Yet
Madame, thee hae yet t' explain why thee permitted it knowing ast thee did that thee were nae in possession of an official acceptance from the Baroness prior to that duel.
Perhaps thee wouldst care t' elucidate further, Madame, for thee aire being 'bout ast clear ast the mud that ist so oft claimed t' be being flung 'bout.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 21 Sep 1999 04:40:42 EDT
Madame Silvertree
Didst nae thee apprise the Lady Topaz by missive that thee wouldst turn over unto the Assistant Supervisor and the Supervisor the matter when the Lady Topaz apprised thee and questioned thee about the fact that the then Baroness hae nae sent an official letter unto thee? Didst thee nae intimate that thee were friend unto both and dinna wish to make a ruling stating that thee dinna feel thee couldst offer an unbiased opinion? Didst thee nae
understand that the Lady Topaz specifically apprised thee that the match wast to take place upon the verra day she didst inquire of thee by missive? The Lady Topaz quite specifically asked if'n the duel wouldst be held ast being official considering that the then Baroness hae failed to make official her acceptance.
Now thee state thee didst speak with the Lady Topaz upon the verra day of the challenge telling her that if'n thee dinna receive a missive by "close of business" that thee wouldst find the Baroness t' be forfeit, seemingly disregarding the information thee were given ast to when the match wouldst be dueled. Tis the clear matter be that the Assistant Supervisor, Turinal Lodrehai Castle didst apprise the Lady Topaz that a missive wouldst be required
from the Baroness prior to the match ast well ast within the required one week timeframe. T'would seem thee either were nae aware of Turi's ruling and chose to interpret the matter e'en after stating thee wouldst nae rule, that or thee disregarded Turi's pronouncement.
Madame Silvertree, tis nae in the least similar t' the example thee present. Tis thee hae admitted thee did nae receive anna missive from the then Baroness prior to that duel. Master Evermeadow most clearly stated he hae nae made anna new ruling that the challenged ist nae required to apprise the Standings Keeper prior to a challenge duel.
Curiouser and curiouser, Madame. Tis seemin' t' me that the Lady Topaz quite clearly felt herself to be at a disadvantage fore in she hast stated that Master Evermeadow intimated to her that should she fail to appear for that match he wouldst nae consider the mere "mistake' of the then Baroness to abide by the rules of engagement reason to hold the Baroness in forfeit. Master Evermeadow hast yet to comment upon that specific question.
Tis quite clear thee offered the fact by thine own hand that thee couldst nae be unbiased in thine ruling in the matter, yet thee now offer the information that thee didst tell the Lady Topaz what thee wouldst do in the matter. What conversation dost make reference to, Madame, where in thee state the Lady Topaz wast apprised that she need nae accept the results of the duel? I should like to know when Master Evermeadow stated that he wouldst hold
the duel ast being valid without the missive being received prior to the duel for in thee hae stated thee aire in agreement with him. Based on thine comments and the statement that thee agree with Master Evermeadow, t'would seem that the requirement ast writ in the rules were set aside, though Master Evermeadow hast stated elsewise. Thee canna hae it both ways, Madame. Either thee dinna receive an official acceptance prior to that duel
whereby the then Baroness wast in default, or thee and Master Evermeadow hae made a ruling privily that such wast nae required prior to a challenger meeting the challenged in the ring.
Perhaps thee hae taken the word prior to nae mean before? By whom, Madame Silvertree, wouldst the Baroness possibly be found to be in forfeit? The Council? Perhaps, hae thee apprised the Council that thee were nae in receipt of an official acceptance from Madame Ashleana ast the duel wast called or immediately thereafter, the Council might have acted and called the Baroness to answer fer her deeds. Madame, I shall remind thee that
ast Standings Keeper, tis thee aire responsible for seeing that the rules aire followed prior to a challenge. Thee apparently chose nae to do such. I shall also note that Madame, thee seem to be placing the fault upon the challenger, the Lady Topaz. The Lady Topaz hast stated her stance ast t' why she continued her pursuit of the challenge and hast stated that she bears some blame for permitting the then Baroness to slip though the rules. Yet
Madame, thee hae yet t' explain why thee permitted it knowing ast thee did that thee were nae in possession of an official acceptance from the Baroness prior to that duel.
Perhaps thee wouldst care t' elucidate further, Madame, for thee aire being 'bout ast clear ast the mud that ist so oft claimed t' be being flung 'bout.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 10:17:34 EDT
Perhaps we should ask *Topaz* whether or not she felt at a disadvantage.
~Sidartha
Date: 21 Sep 1999 10:17:34 EDT
Perhaps we should ask *Topaz* whether or not she felt at a disadvantage.
~Sidartha
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 10:40:52 EDT
I recall a conversation where Drakewyn most certainly did not act as Topaz's friend, to which the conversation would not had stopped had I not protested.
Or do most friends speak snidely about their friend's personal lives in front of others?
Date: 21 Sep 1999 10:40:52 EDT
I recall a conversation where Drakewyn most certainly did not act as Topaz's friend, to which the conversation would not had stopped had I not protested.
Or do most friends speak snidely about their friend's personal lives in front of others?
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: tinytopaz@aol.com (TinyTopaz)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 10:57:09 EDT
Further, I recall a conversation with the Lady Topaz that I took part in where she was apprised that she need not accept the results of that duel and that the Baroness could still have been found in forfeit of the challenge, yet Lady Topaz chose not to follow that option.
Dear Drake,
This NEVER happened. Golden clearly stated, once the duel is faught it WILL STAND.
I hope l have made this utterly clear.
Topaz
Date: 21 Sep 1999 10:57:09 EDT
Further, I recall a conversation with the Lady Topaz that I took part in where she was apprised that she need not accept the results of that duel and that the Baroness could still have been found in forfeit of the challenge, yet Lady Topaz chose not to follow that option.
Dear Drake,
This NEVER happened. Golden clearly stated, once the duel is faught it WILL STAND.
I hope l have made this utterly clear.
Topaz
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: tinytopaz@aol.com (TinyTopaz)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 11:03:11 EDT
Dear Morgan,
l find your post most interesting. May l interest you in a private conversation over coffee and some of Sher's most famous chocolate chip cookies, perhaps this very afternoon?
Yours, Topaz
Date: 21 Sep 1999 11:03:11 EDT
Dear Morgan,
l find your post most interesting. May l interest you in a private conversation over coffee and some of Sher's most famous chocolate chip cookies, perhaps this very afternoon?
Yours, Topaz
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: tinytopaz@aol.com (TinyTopaz)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 11:18:26 EDT
Dear Jona,
l am taking the liberty to answer a couple of your questions that came up in your latest missive to Lady Drake.
In that particular matter Lady Drake did refer me to the Assistant Supervisor and the Supervisor.
Turienal Lodrelhai Castle answered my inquiry by missive only in part, as she stated what the Baroness would have to do prior to the match for it to not be put in question, but no predictions of what could happen if the Baroness did not.
What Lord Evermeadow told me l have stated previously in this very thread.
l hope this helps.
Yours, Topaz
Date: 21 Sep 1999 11:18:26 EDT
Dear Jona,
l am taking the liberty to answer a couple of your questions that came up in your latest missive to Lady Drake.
In that particular matter Lady Drake did refer me to the Assistant Supervisor and the Supervisor.
Turienal Lodrelhai Castle answered my inquiry by missive only in part, as she stated what the Baroness would have to do prior to the match for it to not be put in question, but no predictions of what could happen if the Baroness did not.
What Lord Evermeadow told me l have stated previously in this very thread.
l hope this helps.
Yours, Topaz
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 20:15:37 EDT
Personally, I'm curious as to what relevance this has *now*.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Laylla's husband.
Roman pretorian
Reigning Baron of the Eighth
Former Baron of the Sixth
Mage in DoM
"I am an honorable man, but to duel me is not a pleasant experience, if only for the pain"
Date: 21 Sep 1999 20:15:37 EDT
Personally, I'm curious as to what relevance this has *now*.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Laylla's husband.
Roman pretorian
Reigning Baron of the Eighth
Former Baron of the Sixth
Mage in DoM
"I am an honorable man, but to duel me is not a pleasant experience, if only for the pain"
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 20:50:37 EDT
" Further, I recall a conversation with the Lady Topaz that I took part in where she was apprised that she need not accept the results of that duel and that the Baroness could still have been found in forfeit of the challenge, yet Lady Topaz chose not to follow that option.
Dear Drake,
This NEVER happened. Golden clearly stated, once the duel is faught it WILL STAND.
I hope l have made this utterly clear.
Topaz"
Lady Topaz:
So you don't have to sit at tea with Morgan, I'll tell you exactly which conversation she is refering to.
It was one concerning the number of times you have been wedded, and my opinion that Eros' pursuit and marriage to you were a mistake on his part. I made these comments because, as I saw it, you have problems with marital commitment. I based my opinion on discussions with your past husbands, including Dalton... who I understand has recently returned to the Realm again.
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with my respect for your dueling skills or sportsmanship... though your replies on this matter have dimmed your image in my eyes.
As for the rest of Morgan's statement, though I do still view your skills and accomplishments with respect, I have at no time claimed to be your friend. At best, I would say that we are aquainted with each other and often deal with each other on amicable terms.
As for the conversation where you were told that you could disregard the duel you fought and have the matter taken to the Council, that conversation did indeed take place. I was never made aware of the statement you ascribe to Master Evermeadow, I only recall you saying that you did not want to follow that path.
If Master Evermeadow did indeed declare that the then Baroness need not send her acceptance of the challenge to me, he did not apprise me of such and I will talk to him about this when next I see him.
Lady Morgan.
A fine attempt, but as I said earlier in this post, I have never claimed friendship with Lady Topaz.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 21 Sep 1999 20:50:37 EDT
" Further, I recall a conversation with the Lady Topaz that I took part in where she was apprised that she need not accept the results of that duel and that the Baroness could still have been found in forfeit of the challenge, yet Lady Topaz chose not to follow that option.
Dear Drake,
This NEVER happened. Golden clearly stated, once the duel is faught it WILL STAND.
I hope l have made this utterly clear.
Topaz"
Lady Topaz:
So you don't have to sit at tea with Morgan, I'll tell you exactly which conversation she is refering to.
It was one concerning the number of times you have been wedded, and my opinion that Eros' pursuit and marriage to you were a mistake on his part. I made these comments because, as I saw it, you have problems with marital commitment. I based my opinion on discussions with your past husbands, including Dalton... who I understand has recently returned to the Realm again.
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with my respect for your dueling skills or sportsmanship... though your replies on this matter have dimmed your image in my eyes.
As for the rest of Morgan's statement, though I do still view your skills and accomplishments with respect, I have at no time claimed to be your friend. At best, I would say that we are aquainted with each other and often deal with each other on amicable terms.
As for the conversation where you were told that you could disregard the duel you fought and have the matter taken to the Council, that conversation did indeed take place. I was never made aware of the statement you ascribe to Master Evermeadow, I only recall you saying that you did not want to follow that path.
If Master Evermeadow did indeed declare that the then Baroness need not send her acceptance of the challenge to me, he did not apprise me of such and I will talk to him about this when next I see him.
Lady Morgan.
A fine attempt, but as I said earlier in this post, I have never claimed friendship with Lady Topaz.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 22:00:20 EDT
I'm curious as to what comments on a personal character flaw, real or imagined, that has *nothing* to duel with dueling or challenging has to do in the way of this discussion.
~Sidartha
Date: 21 Sep 1999 22:00:20 EDT
I'm curious as to what comments on a personal character flaw, real or imagined, that has *nothing* to duel with dueling or challenging has to do in the way of this discussion.
~Sidartha
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 22:50:57 EDT
Madame Silvertree,
I should think the Lady Topaz wouldst more certes enjoy tea wi' Morgana th' ta hae thee so blithely cast aspersions upon 'er character. Ast ist oft thine penchant, thee hae again blundered an be stumblin' o'er thine tongue. T'would thin' by now thee hae learned th' be a mos' painful pasttime.
Tis right interestin' th' thee do claim thee ne'er claimed friendship wi' th' Lady Topaz, for in I hae in me possession a missive by thine own hand wherein thee do state, "As someone who has too much of a personal stake in this matter, due to my friendships with both duelers, I feel that I must pass ruling on this to the Assistant Supervisor and the Supervisor."
Thee then state in yuir latest jottin',"A fine attempt, but as I said earlier in this post, I have never claimed friendship with Lady Topaz."
Which be th' truth, Madame Silvertree? Wi' friends such ast thee, Madame Silvertree, one need nae search verra far fer an enemy, neh?
Interestin' that thee set thine opinion ast being that Eros' pursuit an' marriage t' the Lady Topaz wast a mistake on 'is part. Were thee hopin' 'e wouldst chose thee, perhaps? T'would seem tis Eros wh' hae difficulty wi' commitments, Madame, for in 'e didst desert a mos' fair an' lovely queen, vanishin' wi' out a single word, leavin' th' lass enciente. Th' bairn, may th' Mother 'old 'er dear blessed soul gently, dinna survive. Tis e'en more
interestin' th' Eros didst pursue manna a lass whilst wed t' th' lovely Topaz, an' th' thee 'old Eros t' be an' 'onorable man. Th' manna times th' Eros whilst wed t' the Lady Topaz th' 'e chose t' indulge himself in behavior wh' wast clearly insultin' t' 'is lady be innumerable. Further, Madame, tis mos' interestin' th' thee seem t' hae fallen prey t' an attempt t' belittle the Lady Topaz an' hae failed t' answer fer thine conduct. Tis nae a
surprise, Madame, for tis been thine way in manna a matter.
Hae thee perhaps taken up a new position ast gossip columnist fer th' Duely Noted? Rest assured, Madame, if'n tis gossip mongerin' thee wish t' indulge yuirself in, thee shall find th' such tactics hae a way 'o comin' t' roost in a verra painful manner. Were I nae such a lady, Madame, I couldst most assuredly aire a bit 'o dirty linen wi' regard t' yuir ability t' 'old a 'usband. T'was manna a conversation I hae wi' yuir former 'usband whilst 'e
wast indulgin' 'imself wi' someone thee hae claimed ast a dear friend both afore an' after thee two didst part.
Madame Silvertree, the issue ist nae the Lady Topaz private life, th' issue be that the then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana, one whom thee hae mos' publicly claimed ast being a friend, wast permitted t' duel a challenge match when she hae nae complied wi' t' rules 'o engagement. Further, the issue be that thee, ast well ast Master Evermeadow were made aware an' stood silent, nae offerin anna comment atall at th' time. Th' issue be th' Topaz hae said
she wast apprised by th' Supervisor afore th' duel that th' duel, once fought, wouldst stand, in complete disregard fer th' impropriety 'o t' Baroness. Wherefore wouldst she seek t' send t' matter t' th' Council when t' Supervisor hae already tole 'er th' 'e wouldst nae overturn t' match?
Again, Madame, Master Evermeadow hae stated he hae nae made anna new rulin's yet th' duel wast permitted t' take place. If annaones image hae diminished tis thine, though t' diminish th' image thee hae presented fer so long be indeed difficult, tis so diminished ast tis. Madame, thou art a liar, be th' plain enow fer thee? Thou art a pitiful creature, but nae shall thee find th' I pity thee. I must say, Madame, that thine grasp of the common
language seems t' be faulty. Master Evermeadow dinna declare that the then Baroness need nae send her acceptance t' thee, if one ist t' credit 'is own missive 'pon th' cork. Thee thyself stated thee wouldna apprise th' Baroness th' she wast remise, yet thee admit t' speakin' t' 'er after t' duel an' mentionin' t' 'er th' thee were nae in possession 'o th' official acceptance. Tis seemin' thee dinna keep thine word on th' matter t' th' Lady Topaz.
Thee hae betrayed thine office ast Standing's Keeper ast well ast thine given word t' th' Lady Topaz.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 21 Sep 1999 22:50:57 EDT
Madame Silvertree,
I should think the Lady Topaz wouldst more certes enjoy tea wi' Morgana th' ta hae thee so blithely cast aspersions upon 'er character. Ast ist oft thine penchant, thee hae again blundered an be stumblin' o'er thine tongue. T'would thin' by now thee hae learned th' be a mos' painful pasttime.
Tis right interestin' th' thee do claim thee ne'er claimed friendship wi' th' Lady Topaz, for in I hae in me possession a missive by thine own hand wherein thee do state, "As someone who has too much of a personal stake in this matter, due to my friendships with both duelers, I feel that I must pass ruling on this to the Assistant Supervisor and the Supervisor."
Thee then state in yuir latest jottin',"A fine attempt, but as I said earlier in this post, I have never claimed friendship with Lady Topaz."
Which be th' truth, Madame Silvertree? Wi' friends such ast thee, Madame Silvertree, one need nae search verra far fer an enemy, neh?
Interestin' that thee set thine opinion ast being that Eros' pursuit an' marriage t' the Lady Topaz wast a mistake on 'is part. Were thee hopin' 'e wouldst chose thee, perhaps? T'would seem tis Eros wh' hae difficulty wi' commitments, Madame, for in 'e didst desert a mos' fair an' lovely queen, vanishin' wi' out a single word, leavin' th' lass enciente. Th' bairn, may th' Mother 'old 'er dear blessed soul gently, dinna survive. Tis e'en more
interestin' th' Eros didst pursue manna a lass whilst wed t' th' lovely Topaz, an' th' thee 'old Eros t' be an' 'onorable man. Th' manna times th' Eros whilst wed t' the Lady Topaz th' 'e chose t' indulge himself in behavior wh' wast clearly insultin' t' 'is lady be innumerable. Further, Madame, tis mos' interestin' th' thee seem t' hae fallen prey t' an attempt t' belittle the Lady Topaz an' hae failed t' answer fer thine conduct. Tis nae a
surprise, Madame, for tis been thine way in manna a matter.
Hae thee perhaps taken up a new position ast gossip columnist fer th' Duely Noted? Rest assured, Madame, if'n tis gossip mongerin' thee wish t' indulge yuirself in, thee shall find th' such tactics hae a way 'o comin' t' roost in a verra painful manner. Were I nae such a lady, Madame, I couldst most assuredly aire a bit 'o dirty linen wi' regard t' yuir ability t' 'old a 'usband. T'was manna a conversation I hae wi' yuir former 'usband whilst 'e
wast indulgin' 'imself wi' someone thee hae claimed ast a dear friend both afore an' after thee two didst part.
Madame Silvertree, the issue ist nae the Lady Topaz private life, th' issue be that the then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana, one whom thee hae mos' publicly claimed ast being a friend, wast permitted t' duel a challenge match when she hae nae complied wi' t' rules 'o engagement. Further, the issue be that thee, ast well ast Master Evermeadow were made aware an' stood silent, nae offerin anna comment atall at th' time. Th' issue be th' Topaz hae said
she wast apprised by th' Supervisor afore th' duel that th' duel, once fought, wouldst stand, in complete disregard fer th' impropriety 'o t' Baroness. Wherefore wouldst she seek t' send t' matter t' th' Council when t' Supervisor hae already tole 'er th' 'e wouldst nae overturn t' match?
Again, Madame, Master Evermeadow hae stated he hae nae made anna new rulin's yet th' duel wast permitted t' take place. If annaones image hae diminished tis thine, though t' diminish th' image thee hae presented fer so long be indeed difficult, tis so diminished ast tis. Madame, thou art a liar, be th' plain enow fer thee? Thou art a pitiful creature, but nae shall thee find th' I pity thee. I must say, Madame, that thine grasp of the common
language seems t' be faulty. Master Evermeadow dinna declare that the then Baroness need nae send her acceptance t' thee, if one ist t' credit 'is own missive 'pon th' cork. Thee thyself stated thee wouldna apprise th' Baroness th' she wast remise, yet thee admit t' speakin' t' 'er after t' duel an' mentionin' t' 'er th' thee were nae in possession 'o th' official acceptance. Tis seemin' thee dinna keep thine word on th' matter t' th' Lady Topaz.
Thee hae betrayed thine office ast Standing's Keeper ast well ast thine given word t' th' Lady Topaz.
Jonalyn Starfare