Proposal for "The 'NO' more 'Drama Act'"

Whereas Todd Andrew Barnett and Neil Kiernan Stephenson appear to be unable to respond to each others' comments and/or posts without resorting to some sort of personal invective, I move that commenting and/or posting privileges be limited to only those members who have pledged to not engage in personal invective in any public comment and/or post whatever.

Anyone second?

‹ Polling issues for current nat-com at-large election National committee resolution on gay marriage issues ›
Submitted by brighton4343 on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 18:16
Tags:
»

Comments

1

inDglass:

SAVE THE DRAMA FOR YOUR LLAMA!!!

07/04/2010 - 17:22
2

brighton4343:

WORD!!!!

07/20/2010 - 20:27
3

southernpatriot:

What if I don't have a llama?

07/04/2010 - 17:51
4

brighton4343:

What's your new addy ? I know what I'm getting You for a present ...:)

07/20/2010 - 20:29
5

Thomas L. Knapp:

This seems like something that would either be done in convention, or by the national committee.

It's also something that isn't going to happen so long as the site remains on the server it's on now.

07/03/2010 - 19:43
6

southernpatriot:

I hope the two men listed will voluntarily agree to call a "truce" and refrain from further personal attacks.

07/03/2010 - 19:09
7

Todd Andrew Barnett:

I'm down with that. As long as Neil refrains from calling me a "liar" and a "fascist," I'll do exactly that.

If he doesn't, then this will be on him. Enough said.

07/03/2010 - 19:30
8

Todd Andrew Barnett:

I find this motion to be quite absurd and ludicrous on its face. Not only that, I move that this motion is out of order.

Look, I admit that I tend to be quite theatrical and dramatic on this website. I don't deny that. But a political party that censors its members who are squabbling over matters despite their personal disagreements is a stark violation of those said members' First Amendment-protected rights.

Besides, out of the times that I've written on this website, Neil has spewed more invectives and venom at me than I have at him. And given the disappointing At-Large election that has just concluded, I find that the large Party membership should have shot down Neil's chance of winning back his seat. But then again what's the difference? He got what he wanted. Why didn't you guys who aren't exactly on his side and didn't bother to vote yet vote him off? Where were you on that?

Look, if you don't like the drama that unfolds in this Party, then ignore it. Don't pay any attention to it. But truth be told, political parties are all about theatrics and drama. That's their very nature. This is NOT a private business of some sorts; it's a political party that, whether you like it or not, has easily become the arm of the state in a lot of ways. It is what it is. Deal with it.

Besides, I no longer wish to argue with Neil. What's done is done. Let's move on. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to what his caucus is doing and what he plans to do with his re-elected term. The good news is that he's term-limited (which is what I pushed for in 2008, and it's in the Party bylaws). He'll just have to accept it, and the same goes for everyone. That goes without saying, people.

I wish Kimberly would focus her vehement on Neil's ludicrous ideology that has become part and parcel of the Resource-Based Economy Caucus. But whatever floats her boat.

07/03/2010 - 19:01
9

southernpatriot:

I like the idea, but I'm sure one of the two will complain that the party is censoring him or being "fascist".

07/03/2010 - 18:20
10

TVMH:

What's fascist about voluntarily agreeing to not resort to personal invective in a business environment?

07/03/2010 - 18:29
11

southernpatriot:

Nothing, but one of the two men has in the past accused people that don't allow him to post whatever he wants of censoring him and/or being "fascist" - which is impossible for a private group.

07/03/2010 - 18:35
12

brighton4343:

It would not matter what you did ....someone will complain.

07/03/2010 - 18:48
13

TVMH:

i'll 2nd if authorized to do so. :)

07/03/2010 - 18:44
14

TVMH:

so is that a "second"? :D

07/03/2010 - 18:43
15

brighton4343:

SO What!!!

Is that a 2nd? :)

07/03/2010 - 18:25