From: schuldy@math.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Message-Id: <9401181159.AA04517@math.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Principality Meeting
To: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (carolingia)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 06:59:28 -0500 (EST)
Cc: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (carolingia), north@bransle.ucs.mun.ca
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2897      

Harald Longfellow accidently sent this to me, instead of the mailing lists
it originated on.

	Tibor
Forwarded message:
  From augment@world.std.com Mon Jan 17 18:59:35 1994
  Message-Id: <199401172304.AA14362@world.std.com>
  To: schuldy@math (Mark Schuldenfrei)
  Subject: Re: Principality Meeting 
  In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jan 1994 14:15:23 EST."
               <9401171915.AA05061@math.harvard.edu> 
  Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 18:04:31 -0500
  From: Michael Bergman <augment@world.std.com>
  
  I'll stick my own $.02 in -- I was very surprised to be told, when a
  helm was passed after the herald mumbled something inaudible (and I
  was in the *middle* of the feast hall, in the center!) by word of
  mouth, that the helm being passed was to support another polling --
  something that I was not interested in contributing to, as opposed to
  the usualy Great Helm, which I usually *do* contribute to.  
  
  This sort of thing bothers me.  I've spoken to people from up north
  who *were*not*aware* that there was opposition to forming a
  principality, and (obviously) had not heard any of the arguments
  against it -- they honestly thought that the big fuss was all about
  where to draw the lines.  Justin, about a year ago, reported that the
  result of some meeting he had attended "made it obvious that the
  question was not whether, but when" the Northern Principality would be
  formed.  (Please forgive me if I have badly misquoted you, or even
  worse, misattributed the statement) 
  
  I don't want to see another polling right away -- I'd like to see the
  pro-principality forces to bloody well accept the word "no" when they
  hear it -- at least for, say, two years -- I'll readily admit that
  opinions and conditions change.
  
  If there is another polling, Tibor's point about the wording is
  well-made -- the last one provided a choice was of the "Have you
  stopped beating your wife, or do you plan to in the near future?"
  variety.  I'd also like to see supporting material included predicting
  the effects of each of the choices, contributed by committees (that
  ought to hold things up!) for each "side" -- I don't believe there are
  any unbiased observers available, so I'd rather have all biases
  honestly attributed.
  
  But I'd prefer not to have another polling.  Especially one that will
  consider, a 30% plurality to be a binding majority. I don't want to
  have to organize all the people who want to leave well enough alone
  and try to convince them that the only way they can _not do anything_
  is to do something. 
  
  I'm starting a movement to reannex Aethemarc.  I'll be passing a helm
  at the next RP event to collect funds for the polling.  I'll have a
  Herald announce something quietly about the "No Principality Polling"
  prior to passing it.  Look alert!
  
  Harald Longfellow, who is not really a reactionary...