Not really. My posts are moderated at lpradicals. I’m not (at least yet) banned from the group.

It’s a different situation, because most people are moderated at lpradicals, and Dr. Phillies is as far as I know the only state chair being singled out for moderation on the state chairs list. But then again Dr. Phillies is the only state chair who is on the ballot for president instead of, and/or alongside the national party’s nominee for the same office, so it is obviously a touchy issue.

But when you lie with dogs, you get fleas.

Mr. Gordon has made his decision to do just that.

IIRC, Cory worked as ED up until a few weeks before Denver, while SG stopped working as Political Director maybe a year ago or more.

1) Is a matter of definition and technicality.

2) May or may not be a valid reason for the action to be taken. Of course, you are in charge of making that decision, so it’s your choice. But others can have opinions on the matter.

3) The link is what George provided in an email to me.

4) I never suggested otherwise

5) Okay. I’m remembering things incorrectly, then.

Yep, that must be the sole reason, or at least the main one.

Kevin Barrett just got endorsed by Jesse Ventura, and that didn’t even make the news at TPW!

Credit goes here to IPR for their fine coverge.

I’m also in agreement with Stephen Gordon, who I consider to be one of the smartest and hard working Libertarian activists in the entire United States.

I thought that was what was likely to have I happened when I read this.

I think the story should be fixed to reflect your response, but it’s not my story so that is not up to me.

I think the issue of contention is that the Phillies for President signs were just an *example* of what buildasign was saying it could do, but those reading the list could reasonably have interpreted it as a solicitation to order Phillies for President signs rather than signs for their own campaigns and/or those of other candidates in their respective states, especially if not reading carefully.

It sounds like a misunderstanding.

1) The title of this article is factually incorrect. Dr. Phillies has not been banned from the LSLA list. He has been placed in a “moderated” status.

2) Dr. Phillies will not be stopped from using the list for the normal business of the Libertarian Party state chairs. He will not be allowed to promote the Obama, McCain, Nader, Baldwin, McKinney or Phillies presidential campaigns using the resources of the LSLA, however.

3) The link provided in this article to buildasign.com is not the one which was in the e-mail Dr. Phillies sent to the LSLA list. Here is the link he provided in the e-mail message to the list: http://www.buildasign.com/campaign-signs/National/Presidential/George-Phillies?temcid=1005

As of the time I am writing this comment, the linked signs read “Elect George Phillies President.”

Here is an example of one of the signs depicted: http://www.gordonunleashed.com/philliessign.jpg

4) I sold TPW and have no role there at this time. I haven’t posted anything there in quite some time.

5) My first involvement with any presidential movement involving Bob Barr is well documented. It began at CPAC 2008, which was prior to the LSLA meeting being discussed. Here is the first of many articles I wrote on that topic: http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/11/drafting-bob-barr/. Links within this article provide some level of corroberation. This was over half a year after I left my job at LPHQ.

The allegation that Gordon and Barr were conspiring to install Barr as the presidential candidate back when Gordon was LP staff is a different contention altogether.

It would have been a violation of the terms of his then-job, and it would mean he lied to my face at the time. Neither of which is impossible, but I’d like to know if true, even in retrospect. If he has admitted this, I’d like to know when, where and to whom.

On the other hand, if the only evidence that Stephen was a Barr “supporter” when he was on staff is that he was working with the then-prospective Barr campaign starting around February of the following year, there is a factual error in this story as published.

Of course, it is possible that he was a Barr supporter in the same sense he was, say, a Bill Redpath supporter or a Chuck Moulton supporter? I’m not sure if a staff member being a supporter of an LNC member is what was meant here. Given that Barr subsequently ran for president, I’d want to clarify that ambiguity.

That is, all the time when Barr was getting free speaking time at conventions, he was prevaricating about not being a candidate.

Well, yes. But the earliest I recall him doing so was around February of this year at LSLA.

At the time when he was political director, he specifically told me that Barr running was out of the question. If you have a source on the specific point in question – that he did so while he was political director – I would love to know.

http://twitter.com/AngelaKeaton

Had great time with Wrights and Haugh. Still very touched by the Admiral’s seriousness about speech. about 9 hours ago from web

Sean Haugh wants you all to know that he wanted an open session discussion on Fincher. We went into exec. Boring. about 9 hours ago from web

At the time when Steve was political director, Barr was on the LNC and there was no overt hint that Barr would be a presidential candidate, and in fact he was denying that it was even a possibility. In what sense was Steve a Barr backer at that time?