> There is no dismismal coming from me. You are the one being flippant
> and dismissive.
Responding with stratforward and to the point statements about why your opinion is invalid is not flippant. It is, I have found, the best way of communicating an idea.
> I see the merits of your opinion and I disagree with
> it. I think you are perscribing elements of other people's arguments
> to me, or perhaps reading in to my statements an opinion that is not
> there.
I am taking your present arguments together with previous ones you have given over this issue.
> If, by action beyond our control, we are unable to perform a task, why
> are we to be held accountable for it? Especially considering that the
> task is at the request of the same structure that has removed our
> capacity to complete it?
The only circumstance beyond our control (which is actually up for debate) is Jason's removal. The subsequent elections, postponed elections, election results, and so forth were all situation in which the power to make a decision was handed to us. In other words, we had control, and chose this path.
You seem to feel that the catalyst for this entire situation is at fault for all of this, simply because it was out of our control and therefore somehow 'forced' us to do what we did. This is simply not the case- We had the choice, we had the power, we chose our path.
> Granted, we could have a DST right now, but it is obvious that many
> members of the Domain feel that that would compromise other issues
> which are important to them.
No, it is obvious that a vocal and engaged group of members feel that the above is the case. Simply because you're loud doesn't mean you're in the majority.
> In my mind, as I suspect is in theirs,
> the "fault" for our lack of DST is on Alex T, et al, and any
> penalties, were they to be incurred, should fall to him.
Any penalties for Jason's removal, should he be found to be at fault, should be on Alex. Any penalties for the Domain to not follow appropriate procedures and therefore be dissolved are ours.
> HOWEVER, as
> that issue is currently in discussion and the question of fault is
> undecided, it only stands to reason that some other exemption should
> mitigate further harm to any parties involved, eg: dissolution of the
> Domain for failing to report.
Out of curiosity, lets assume the hypothetical situation that the Council finds in favor of Charles and Alex. Now, I *KNOW* that you think you're in the right, and they shouldn't. But assume that they do.
What would you do?
Mike K
US2002022250