Rough Draft

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

To elaborate, stating that we don't recognize his right does not strip him of that right. If he were offended by that refusal to recognize his rights, he would be welcome to bring legal action. I would suggest that his doing so would be hypocritical, as the proposed wording is contingent upon the same sort of wilful misreaping of the OrgLaw as his own actions. Not saying he wouldn't. But I also don't care. I wrote it a few months ago to demonstrate a point and brought it up again as it was being discussed and I thought it could serve as a starting point, or rough draft.

(To clarify my elobariation, I wouldn't care if the king brought legal action against Benito IF this were proposed, passed, and upheld in referendum, and that's an unlikely IF, because it would demonstrate a few things I'm curious to know, and also because it would mean he finally paid attention AT ALL to Benito instead of ignoring us completely. Sometimes you have to be dramatic to be noticed. Especially by the absent and perpetually oblivious.)

Also, sorry for my confrontational tone, it comes from a current emotional state unrelated to these matters or Talossa at all, exacerbated by a strong opinion on these matters. I have no problem with you or your criticisms. I actually agree with them, but they were part of my original point.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Apr 19, 2016 17:25:47 GMT -6 Vitxalmour Conductour said:

To elaborate, stating that we don't recognize his right does not strip him of that right.

Ergo if you don't strip him of that right, he has that right, then you cannot unrecognise it.

the proposed wording is contingent upon the same sort of wilful misreaping of the OrgLaw as his own actions. Not saying he wouldn't. But I also don't care. I wrote it a few months ago to demonstrate a point

Is misreaping an union of misreading and reaping? I think I'll start using it!

So you are conscious of the inorganicity of those sentences, right? «the same sort of wilful misreaping», «to demonstrate a point».

EDIT: I've read your elaboration of the elaboration, I understand! :thumbup:

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

I've been misreaping the wheat all this time.

(I had a typo in my attempt to rewrite my typo above and it came out far, far worse. Glad I caught it this time.)

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Apr 19, 2016 17:48:53 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

Ergo if you don't strip him of that right, he has that right, then you cannot unrecognise it.

It's a bit like my kids. They tell me they aren't hungry. Then I clear the table and they ask for cookies. I say, "But you said you weren't hungry." And the say, "no, we didn't." They know they did. I know they did. They know I know they did. But they'll still deny it, because cookies.

I think quite a few Benitians want some cookies. I'm just daft enough to try saying we never said we weren't hungry.

(And no, that never (OK...usually doesn't) work for them. But it sometimes works in politics. Because politicians are like toddlers with power.)

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Let us bring this before the Legislative Chancellory in the next week (I am tied up with auditions this weekend) for debate. It is obvious that the people of Benito feel strongly in regards to the failures of royal governance in the province, and so we should speak out on this, and strongly.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

There's also the point to be made that the king or his agent could refuse to proclaim such an amendment, but that would require them to pay attention to us, which they never do. So either they won't, and it gets by because they are unwilling or unable to do their job, so good riddance. Or they stop it and prove they only care about our province in so far as it affects their petty powers, in which case, even better to be rid of them.

Might I suggest: The "I Didn't Vote For You" Ammendment