Excerpt from an article at BostonTea.US
The Boston Tea Party bylaws require that the national committee and its members have open meetings where their deliberations are public and online. Doing so is vital to prevent the BTP from becoming the kind of party the LP has become, and the kinds of parties the DNC and GOP have always been.
This policy is particularly important to me. So important, in fact, that I regarded it as of greater significance that the confidentiality of the private conversations I had with Charles Jay, Darcy Richardson, and Tom Knapp, when those conversations became themselves a matter for the deliberations of the members of the Boston Tea Party. Everything that the national committee discusses should be discussed in a place where the discussions can be reviewed and evaluated by the members.
Why?
There are several reasons. Let’s start with consent.
For a free people to be governed, the government must derive its powers from the consent of the governed. If it does not, then it has arbitrary power, rather than just power. But, how is consent to be meaningful if it is not informed?
In contract law we regard a contract as valid only if it is entered willingly, knowingly, and competently, and only if there is consideration (an exchange of value) between the parties. If material information is withheld from either party to the contract, then the contract wasn’t entered into knowingly, and consent is invalidated. In fact, there is a criminal term for withholding significant information from the other party to an agreement: fraud. Fraud is also a matter of tort, since it may be withheld by negligence or oversight rather than deliberately.
Simply put, knowledge is power. The consent of the governed has been obtained through fraud. We all remember the lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Those lies were the main reason many Americans felt that going to war in Iraq was justified. Those lies were perpetrated fraudulently and deliberately – criminally and treasonously – at the highest levels of government. Dick Cheney, among others, lied to Richard Armey, among others, to get the votes for the Iraq war.
Fraud has also been perpetrated in other matters, relating to torture, relating to domestic wiretaps, relating to the justifications given for the USAPATRIOT act. Other scandals, such as Iran-Contra, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, the lies about the secret bombings of Cambodia, the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Arlen Specter’s magic bullet, and many other lies have figured prominently in recent history. So it should be no surprise that Americans who seek freedom reject fraud.
If the Boston Tea Party or any other party is going to seek to elect officials to govern a free people, its affairs ought to be available for the scrutiny of at least its own members. So, I was surprised and disheartened by Neil Stephenson’s comments about the Boston Tea Party, posted publicly to the chat room of Michael Seebeck’s coverage of the recent LNC meeting.
Obviously, individuals may have private conversations. It is entirely possible that important choices are discussed and even taken in private which then result in resolutions and other actions being evaluated by the Boston Tea Party. But, Neil’s unwillingness to use the Yahoogroups to participate in the open deliberations process is no excuse for him to attack the concept of openness and transparency in our party.
Recently, George Donnelly, Michael Seebeck, Paulie Cannoli, and others have been inspired by the blatant disregard for transparency to form a Sunshine Caucus or Transparency Caucus for the Libertarian Party. (Can you imagine, the acting executive director of the LP demanded that every LNC member sign a confidentiality agreement as though they were volunteers working for the executive director, rather than the governing body representing the members? How crass of Krause.)
I took it upon myself to contribute the following paragraph to their deliberations over a mission statement for the Sunshine Caucus.
“Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. For consent to be meaningful, it must be informed. A political party which seeks to control the government of a free people should welcome inquiries and provide information openly. The Libertarian Party Sunshine Caucus seeks to enhance the spirit of liberty by increasing the transparency and openness of the business operations, headquarter operations, and policy operations of the Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee. The purpose of this work is to inform the membership as thoroughly as possible so that their consent may be knowing, willing, and competent.”
Obviously, I believe that the same thing applies to the Boston Tea Party. I would like the members of this party to be a Sunshine Caucus for the Boston Tea Party, and continuously demand insight into the specific workings of the party’s business at every level – state, county, precinct, and national. Especially national.
The national LP is clearly out of hand with regard to its abuse of executive session and its recent witch hunt against a member of the LNC for informing her constituents about non-confidential information (according to the LP’s own lawyer) discussed in an executive session that itself had not been called for proper purposes. Apparently, the children running the LP think they can defame a member of the LNC in executive session and she is not allowed to report this to her constituents.
I should note, with some regret, that the physical effects of the LNC’s witch hunt against her, together with the professional and public embarrassment which the LP has become to, among others, AntiWar.com, were among the reasons for Angela’s recent resignation from the LNC.
Obviously, I think the LNC ought to have completed its deliberations in about three minutes, voted to chastise Stewart Flood for bringing a thought crime prosecution, and moved on. The prospect of an endless committee investigation was obviously more than Angela was prepared to put up with.
Is that the future of the Boston Tea Party? I don’t know. I certainly aver that it is my plan to avoid it, no matter whose confidential conversations I have to publicly expose.
67 responses so far ↓
1 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 6:39 am
Jim Davidson? Who the hell is he?
2 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 6:40 am
Say, by the way, I submitted a related essay to The Libertarian Enterprise for publication. It promotes the Sunshine Caucus concept.
3 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 6:43 am
For a non-member you are sure doing a lot of work
4 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 6:51 am
I should note that many Ron Paul supporters, delegates, and observors were appalled at the way the GOP treated them during its primaries, and even in post-primary activities. Simply put, the GOP is the model for what the LP seems to be trying to become – at least if the Redpath Starr Karlan Carling Flood coterie get their way.
I still maintain that Ron Paul won Louisiana.
5 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 7:03 am
@3 I put my efforts where my beliefs are, and I don’t care about matters like titles, memberships, degrees, or fancy haircuts.
6 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 7:33 am
same here
7 mdh // Dec 9, 2008 at 11:49 am
Despite the personal disagreements between you and Neil Stephenson, there’s no need to continue bringing it up. His intention was never to decrease transparency within the BTP by his suggestions.
8 FreeMarketeer // Dec 9, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Matt:
Despite the personal disagreements between you and Neil Stephenson, there’s no need to continue bringing it up. His intention was never to decrease transparency within the BTP by his suggestions.
Jim Davidson BROUGHT it up because I was the one who gave him the copied chat of the LNC meeting on Justin.TV to begin with. Considering this ugly matter is between me and Neil, that chat, for all intents and purposes, was done publicly and during a meeting. You should know; you were there.
Jim brought it up for the first time on the Boston Tea Party website. Paulie was the one who posted this on IPR. Anything that Jim writes, odds are that it will be reproduced here on IPR. Count on it.
Neil is a two-faced liar, and he made a lot of statements that were ntrue and bullshit from the get-go. How would you know what his “intention” was? Unless you read the private exchanges between Jim and Neil, you have no idea of what Neil’s “intention” was.
As far as I’m concerned, Neil’s chats are fair game. He IS fair game. I’m fair game as well, but the difference is that I apologized for my part in a chat that should never have happened in the first place. And I issued my apologies to Mike and Lidia Seebeck who accepted them in the first place.
That’s all I’m gonna say, but, suffice it to say, Jim didn’t do anything wrong.
9 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Jim brought it up for the first time on the Boston Tea Party website. Paulie was the one who posted this on IPR.
Yes, and did you notice what part I didn’t post?
Anything that Jim writes, odds are that it will be reproduced here on IPR. Count on it.
I would not go that far. Jim writes a lot more than I can reasonably post here.
10 Trent Hill // Dec 9, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“I still maintain that Ron Paul won Louisiana.”
In the Caucus? I believe you are correct Jim. I worked District 6 in LA and was the Student Organizer for all of LA–we won that state,and were robbed.
11 FreeMarketeer // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“Yes, and did you notice what part I didn’t post?”
Actually, not only did you not post one part, but you didn’t post a number of other parts. I noticed that you didn’t post the paragraph and the first sentence of the of the second.
Not only that, you didn’t post the last six paragraphs of Jim’s blog post. In fact, you only post what you wanted to post, not what everyone wanted to see, even though there is a link to the entire piece.
But I did notice one thing — you didn’t post Neil’s comments about me.
I’m curious; why didn’t you do that?
12 VTV // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Were you equally surprised and disheartened by the fact that in those comments, the ones that specifically were about you everyone in the chat room aside from your little toadie Todd Barnett were unanimously agreed to?
Complete with you clearly having some kind of emotional/mental disorder?
A good deal of my problems with how the BTP is proceeding is idiotic trolls like you Mr. Davidson.
13 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Todd
A) It is common practice to post excerpts from articles and it is clearly labeled as an excerpt with a link back to the full text.
As a matter of fact, other people have given me shit for posting their whole article and not just an excerpt. It’s getting to the point where I don’t want to do this at all anymore. Y’all keep it up. I’m this close to saying fuck it.
B) I have no interest in posting your personal bickering with Neil here. I don’t think it is appropriate, or of interest to our readership. As someone suggested in justintv chat “get a room.”
C) I will write about what I want when I want, subject to Trent overriding me, but we already have numerous reader requests to stop providing coverage to the BTP because it is smaller than other parties we rarely ever mention. If you want to make it unpleasant to cover on top of that, good luck getting the remaining authors to give you any coverage at all.
14 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm
@7 No need? Reason not the need, sir. Grant nature not more than nature “needs” and man’s life is cheap as beast’s.
15 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:31 pm
@9 And a lot more than I would want posted. Thanks for being intelligent and selective, Paulie.
16 Trent Hill // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“As a matter of fact, other people have given me shit for posting their whole article and not just an excerpt. It’s getting to the point where I don’t want to do this at all anymore. Y’all keep it up. I’m this close to saying fuck it. ”
Paulie, I deeply appreciate your work at the blog. These guys spend their time making mountains out of BTP-molehills, ignore them.
17 FreeMarketeer // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Paulie:
I never said I wanted you to “post [my] personal bickering with Neil here.” I was just asking a question here. I don’t have a chip on my shoulder with you or anyone. Besides, you asked. I responded.
There you all have it.
18 VTV // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:53 pm
From my comments to Mr. Davidson’s statements on Bostontea.us:
I had enough of Mr. Davidson’s harassment that I actually informed him if he continued I would be seeking legal action against him. He has been nothing but an unprofessional troll. He has taken several things out of context, and I note that he doesn’t post anything about the fact that all of the Libertarians in that chat room at the time other then Todd totally agreed with my feelings that Jim Davidson’s behavior shows some signs of a mental/social disorder. And the consensus was pretty clear that he was little more then a disruptive influence who liked to have conflicts just for the sake of having conflicts.
I had suggested that we consider broadcasting a national conference call LIVE and offering archives for our membership. He went on to insinuate that I had some kind of ulterior motive of secrecy, which was completely the opposite of the truth. Rather then apologizing for these insinuations he just went on being a troll.
“I would also ask Neil what he meant when he posted, to the same public chat forum, “People who behave like Davidson are the reason we look like a crazy fringe party.”
Because it is the absolute truth. That is why. Mr. Davidson in our email exchanges went on to threaten to kill me along with other things during the course of the email conversation. His reputation in the Libertarian community is clearly well known. I find it funny that on one hand he is trying to claim that we have to have absolute transparency and honesty, and then in the other he says I should censor how I really feel for the sake of being the “public face”.
I have never attacked the notion of openness or transparency in the party. That is an absolute lie. I asked that we consider changing the format for our public meetings as I feel that direct communication is more efficient then internet communication. Spend time on any message board and look at the huge misconceptions that people make about one another, and the trolling the comes from it. The format that I was suggesting would be completely public, and archives of it would be available for anyone who missed the live meetings.
I contend now that this whole notion that I want anything but transparency in our meetings is a notion that exists only in Mr. Davidson’s mind. And that the only reason he feels the need to bring this up here is to try and get some form of political revenge for my public sharing in a chat room about my feelings about another activist that clearly did not show him in a good light. And by the end of the conversation, it didn’t show Todd in a good light either.
He made a lot of very pretty statements from our founding fathers. I will reference the 1st amendment. And that the reason we are allowed to say whatever we want is so that we can come to realizations about the truth.
I was asked to run for this position by a member of the party. I put my name in the hat and I won.
I appreciate the various things that Mr. Davidson and Mr. Barnett have done for the party. None of them however should ever become a license to behave the way they have. I don’t care if he donates a million dollars, when someone behaves like little more then a conversational thug, they don’t deserve my respect.
19 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:55 pm
@12 Mr. Stephenson: I don’t have a complete copy of the chat. Perhaps you should send me a copy so I can verify your assertion that “everyone” who expressed a view was in perfect agreement with everything you’ve ever written. I doubt it. And, of course, I don’t agree with the things you wrote on the chat. Which is, after all, why I gave voice to my thoughts on my personal blog.
Perhaps you could give your pop psychology diagnosis, Neil? Or are you afraid that someone in Michigan’s government would arrest you for practicing medicine without a license?
If I have a mental disorder related to post traumatic stress from having eleven of my bones broken by police in Houston in 2004, what conceivable business is that of yours? People know where they stand with me. I am open about what I think and how I feel. Most of my animosity is directed toward tyranny, but I have enough to direct some toward those who seek to direct the Boston Tea Party with authoritarian methods.
Your views on having endless hours of taped conference calls in place of the existing, and working, open deliberations on the Yahoo group were not agreeable to me, nor to many of the members of the national committee. Yes, I do believe you were against an important level of openness and transparency in the Boston Tea Party.
Perhaps because you were unwilling to learn how to use the Yahoo group, or perhaps you didn’t have the ages old ability to parse e-mail discussions to establish who posted what. Or perhaps you wanted to have the deliberations become increasingly opaque to the members, so you could feel more important. I don’t know.
And, ultimately, I don’t need to be sympathetic, Neil. You aren’t my friend. I see no reason to be nice to you.
What are your problems with how the BTP is proceeding? Are you, for example, having problems with our continuing growth in membership? Or are you having problems with your own failure to establish any new state affiliates since joining the national committee?
You don’t have problems with trolls like me, you have a problem with me. There are no other people in the Boston Tea Party like me, although a number of people in the party choose, for their own reasons, to like me.
You don’t. And perhaps you resent me. Hey, that’s great.
If it weren’t for me sending a private e-mail to each remaining member of the BTP national committee, would we ever have heard from you on the important matter that you hadn’t responded to on the Yahoo group? Would the BTP acting chair have asked George Donnelly to evaluate alternative forum software to replace the Yahoo groups, if I hadn’t made some effort to get in contact with you? Would you have responded more than twice on the Yahoogroup if you hadn’t been prompted?
In other words, who the hell are you? If you want to impress the members of the BTP with how you think the party is going, why not do something for the party?
I don’t agree with your characterisation of me as a troll. I am a sincere and diligent respondent and correspondent on this and other sites.
I don’t agree with your characterisation of me as “idiotic.” I am, in fact, both intelligent and erudite. Would you like to compare grade point averages, SAT scores, National Merit Scholarship money, scholarships and honors, or Stanford Binet scores? Or Iowa “basic skills”? Or maybe you’re just jealous of my college and graduate degrees?
I also don’t agree with your characterisation of Todd as my “toadie.” He and I disagree frequently. He has a mind of his own, and uses it.
He does, however, contribute frequently and meaningfully to the party. He doesn’t seem to get any help from you with the BTP Michigan state affiliate. Perhaps because you are too self-important or self-centered. Todd did yeoman’s work to help me pull the BTP out of oblivion.
So, I ask again, other than insulting the chairs of two state affiliates, what are you doing for the Boston Tea Party? Anything? Nothing?
20 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm
@13 I have no problem with your choices, Paulie. I think you chose wisely.
I do wonder about the requests not to give any coverage to the Boston Tea Party. These remind me of the difficulties the LP and other third parties have in getting coverage in the mainstream media. Fox News refused to invite Ron Paul to one of the presidential primary debates because he represented a smaller group of Republicans than (evidently) John McCain.
Size is relevant, and I’m doing my best to increase the size of the party through recruiting. And through doing things to make it interesting and controversial. However, it did not require a majority to throw the colonies into war with England.
21 VTV // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm
“Unless you read the private exchanges between Jim and Neil, you have no idea of what Neil’s “intention†was.”
The email conversation basically consisted of him making accusations, and me clarifying that he was wrong. Over, and over, and over. He claimed I didn’t want to be transparent, I clarified, he invented more falsehoods as to my motivations, I clarified. Over, and over and over. This is why I told him I didn’t want to in any way converse with him anymore.
22 VTV // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Oh and yes, MDH has read them.
23 mdh // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm
In all fairness, I know what Neil proposed, and I know what his intentions were. I do not see it as in any way damaging transparency or otherwise being bad. It may be more intuitive for some folks, and less for others.
24 LibertarianGirl // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Not to change the subject but has anyone heard anything about the George Squyres resignation?
25 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:31 pm
@18 So you are too timid to call Todd a toadie on the bostontea.us site? How droll.
I would enjoy having you take legal action against me, Neil. Doing so shows how eager you are to use the state to apply force where you don’t have arguments to make.
I contacted you privately in the first place because you were either too arrogant, or too ignorant, to use the Yahoogroups forum to address matters of significance to the party. I offered to assist you in any way with learning the Yahoo groups system, which I first encountered ten years ago. Obviously, my offers of assistance were regarded as harassment.
Since any number of libertarians who weren’t present in the chat room on Justin.tv don’t agree with you, why is it significant that you were determined to persuade the ones in that chat room of your views? Did everyone reading that chat post, or did you consider the views of those who didn’t want to interrupt your bullying of Todd?
This consensus that I’m a disruptive influence who should be shunned, or perhaps killed, are you prepared to have it as a consensus of members of the Boston Tea Party? Shall we transfer the process of having a witch hunt in the LNC to the BTP?
I want to disrupt tyranny, Neil. And you aren’t doing enough about tyranny. Which means that I’m going to criticise you when you fail to take meaningful actions.
“I had suggested that we consider broadcasting a national conference call LIVE and offering archives for our membership.”
You had suggested that the national committee conduct its business out of sight of the members. When I challenged the issue of having the conversation and minutes being easily manipulated, you then suggested archiving an audio file. Which I protested was inadequate to allow the members of the party, the people you are supposed to represent, review the deliberations. Obviously, that would make it harder for the members generally to understand what was going on or to over-rule the actions of the national committee. It is exactly this matter of transparency which is now prominent before the LP. Prominent enough to warrant the formation of a Sunshine Caucus.
I continue to believe that you are against transparency and openness because you continue to assert a desire to have the process changed to one where verbal statements are made, no transcripts are provided, and minutes are reviewed and approved to distort the nature and extent of the discussion. As I’ve pointed out, John Wayne Smith the chair of our erstwhile Florida affiliate objected for 15 minutes to the resolution withdrawing BTP Florida, says he was coerced by Charles Jay into voting to withdraw, and yet the minutes reflect neither of these facts.
Refusing to agree with you is not being a troll. Mr. Stephenson. Refusing to agree with your views on transparency is expressing my views on the matter. Obviously, to you anyone who does not apologise for taking a principled position against you is a troll. How charming.
“Because it is the absolute truth. That is why. ”
I didn’t ask you why you posted such an insulting statement. I asked what you meant by it. Good to see you becoming defensive, though. Would you like to lash out, now? I know that you told Todd that I needed to have a punch in the nose. Were you going to supply the punch, or are you too timid?
Thank you for making our e-mail exchanges a matter for deliberation by the national committee. They’ll be up on btpnc-talk today.
“he says I should censor how I really feel for the sake of being the “public faceâ€.”
I didn’t say anything of the sort. I asked what you meant by your comments. I also asked what you expected to accomplish with them. Your unpleasantness toward Todd on the Justin.tv chat evidently related to his decision to resign from the BTP and the BTP-MI. So, perhaps your goal was to eliminate the state affiliate in Michigan, because you don’t like Todd?
“The format that I was suggesting would be completely public, and archives of it would be available for anyone who missed the live meetings.”
No, the format you were suggesting was a teleconference that some of the national committee members might try to schedule, followed by minutes which might or might not characterise the deliberations, and might be modified by the national committee members until they felt things “looked” right. Subsequently you added the idea of maybe having an audio file archive. Which would, in fact, be a completely different process from the online web discussion format we have now.
When I objected, you became unpleasant and insulting. I dispute your assertion that I ever threatened to kill you, unless you take station with tyrants. Perhaps you’d like to quote what you imagine to be a threat?
“I contend now that this whole notion that I want anything but transparency in our meetings is a notion that exists only in Mr. Davidson’s mind.”
I think the lady doth protest too much.
“And that the only reason he feels the need to bring this up here is to try and get some form of political revenge for my public sharing in a chat room about my feelings about another activist that clearly did not show him in a good light.”
Dude, I didn’t bring it up here. I posted an essay to my personal blog on bostontea.us. Paulie felt there were parts of that essay that merited discussion here. You are the one who brought up how unpleasant you were being to me and to Todd. And, oddly, you didn’t contact me by private e-mail or phone to invite me onto the justin.tv chat to defend myself, because you and your buddy George Donnelly, and your sycophants thrasherhimself and jackdaniels67 were content to attack me in my absence.
But, let me clarify something. I don’t care what you think. I’m not even confident that you do think. I don’t mind if you say insulting things about me. That shows you in a powerful light. It says very little about me, except what you wish to say when you don’t think I’m around to see it.
You are, of course, welcome to say what you please. I am equally free to ask what you meant, and whether you are accomplishing anything for the party by saying it.
You were asked to run for the position you have on the national committee by a member of the party. Would you mind saying which one? And who else supported your election by seconding the nomination? These things are a matter of public record.
“He made a lot of very pretty statements from our founding fathers.”
I do. Often. Because I believe the essential liberty sought by the founders of this country is now gone. And it is gone where I cannot get it back by myself. Therefore, I work very hard to encourage others to help get it back, even if doing so embarrasses them, makes them feel like they are being asked to do things when they are wanting to slack off, or makes them feel like I’m unfriendly.
“I appreciate the various things that Mr. Davidson and Mr. Barnett have done for the party.”
No you don’t. You don’t have any appreciation for either one of us. You regard Todd as a fool and me as a troll. You’ve said so. You utterly disparage both Todd and me, and you do so publicly.
“None of them however should ever become a license to behave the way they have.”
What way is that? Behave by, say, writing what I think? Expressing how I feel?
You yourself wrapped yourself in the constitution, saying, “I will reference the 1st amendment. And that the reason we are allowed to say whatever we want is so that we can come to realizations about the truth.”
So, your behavior in calling Todd a fool and me a troll, your post on IPR calling Todd a toadie, these are behaviors that are virtuous, upright, and uncontestable. But my behavior in inquiring why you wanted to change the party’s functioning open deliberation process was not? What is your standard for acceptable behavior, then?
“I don’t care if he donates a million dollars, when someone behaves like little more then a conversational thug, they don’t deserve my respect.”
So, you don’t respect me because when people say things, I respond? How is it the behavior of a thug?
You were the one who threatened to punch me in the nose, right? You told Todd that you thought I needed a punch in the nose. So far, you haven’t produced a quote that says I threatened to kill you, which I very much doubt.
So what is this thuggish stuff? It is just a way of saying that you would rather I say flowery things about you, rather than ask that you do your job for the Boston Tea Party.
Much like the public face of the party. It is wrong of me to express my thoughts and emotions where others can see it, because it embarrasses you that I am actually against tyranny. It is not wrong, somehow, for you to express insults where others can see them, because….why was that not wrong, again?
26 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:36 pm
@21 I objected to the process you wanted to insist on as being other than transparent. I continue to have those objections to that approach. To say that I made things up about you is certainly mistaken. But, you’ve made these discussions a matter for the BTPNC-talk list, to the extent that they aren’t already there.
27 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:37 pm
@23 I know what he proposed, and I don’t know what his intentions were. Are you saying that you are God to know what is i the hearts of men? Seems pretty cool.
Neil proposed to fundamentally alter a system which has been working. He proposed to make it something that I, and others, did not feel would be sufficiently transparent.
28 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:37 pm
@24 No, who is he and from what did he resign? And why is that relevant to this thread?
29 LibertarianGirl // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Hes a LNC at-large alternate. he resigned from the LNC. It has no relevance I just don’t know who else to ask:)
30 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:39 pm
@9 And a lot more than I would want posted. Thanks for being intelligent and selective, Paulie.
Thanks, Jim.
Todd: it’s all good. I’m just frustrated with a lot of things right now. Most of it has very little to do with this.
Paulie, I deeply appreciate your work at the blog.
Thanks Trent. I appreciate yours too.
Not to change the subject but has anyone heard anything about the George Squyres resignation?
Only that it happened.
31 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Squyres is from Arizona. Our threads frequently venture off topic, but since this thread is about transparency – particularly how it relates to the LP and BTP – vacancies on the LNC are at least somewhat relevant.
32 mdh // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:45 pm
@27 Yes I am God.
33 mdh // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:45 pm
(Let me clarify – my personal beliefs are such that each person should fulfill the role of god for themself, rather than relying on external entities.)
34 mdh // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:47 pm
We love you, Paulie.
I haven’t heard from George Squyres yet. I heard second-hand from another LNC member at the same time via the same email you did Debra. Maybe Mr. Squyres will go ahead and let us know what’s up and why he resigned some time soon. I would like that.
35 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Paulie felt there were parts of that essay that merited discussion here.
Unfortunately, it is the parts I deemed least relevant that are getting discussed the most. Oh well, conversations don’t always go where one hopes.
36 mdh // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Welcome to the internet!
I’m starting to feel a bit sarcastic after all the drama of the past few days. On a bright note, I’m actually fairly witty, so I guess it could turn out amusing.
At the same time, the transparency caucus is a great thing and I’m very glad we’re doing it. I’m just chilling for now and taking some small actions while other folks work out organizational details and what not.
37 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm
We love you, Paulie.
Who is this “we” of which you speak? You have revealed yourself as a secret collectivist! Purge! PURGE! (!!……!!)
38 mdh // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I speak on behalf of everyone. God, remember?
39 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I speak on behalf of everyone. God, remember?
That can’t be true. You exist, and you are not dead. I stamp feet, beat chest, and reject mysticism and collectivism.
PUUUUURRRRRRGGGGEEEE!
40 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm
By the way, I did apologise to Neil. Here:
from Planetary Jim
to Neil Kiernan
bcc Thomas Knapp ,
Todd Andrew Barnett
date Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:52 PM
subject stay or go, I don’t care
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details Nov 28 (11 days ago)
Reply
I understand from Todd that you think I’m trying to get you to leave the BTP.
I do not want you to leave the BTP. I really don’t care either way.
If you want to break my nose, then come break it. You would not be
the first person to break my nose, or my other bones. My parents used
to do it all the time.
If you want to do something constructive, I suggest you look at the
alternate “proboards” forum technology that Gatties started.
With regard to conference calls, as sophisticated as they are, and as
sincere and ethical as you are sure you will always be, there is no
way for you to know what the ethics of future members of the committee
are going to be. My central concern is not that you might abuse the
process, but that the process should not be abusable.
If you think that by raising concerns about the process, and asking
questions about why you want to change a process that has been working
for others, I have insulted you, then I’m sorry that you feel that
way. If you think any of my specific words were insulting to your
honor, then I apologise for those words.
However, I do think that I am not the only obstreperous libertarian
activist in the country. If you don’t want to make peace with me,
that’s fine. If you don’t want to serve a bunch of independent and
ornery libertarian activists, then you should reconsider your position
on the committee. I’m not the only asshole in the party.
41 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Here’s a promise to defend myself, in the subjunctive tense, with hypothetical clearly stated. It is not a threat to kill him.
A third message is now on btpnc-talk, between these two. Gosh how dull this has become.
from Planetary Jim
to Neil Kiernan
bcc Todd Andrew Barnett ,
Thomas Knapp
date Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:06 PM
subject Re: stay or go, I don’t care
mailed-by gmail.com
> I didn’t threaten you. He took an expression out of context.
No, he didn’t. You said to him that I needed to be punched in the
nose for the things I was saying. Like every other authoritarian on
the planet, you know when to apply force to people who say things you
don’t like to get them to stop saying them. You want to use
aggression and threats of force to intimidate other people into
behaving differently. Which makes you an authoritarian.
> Trust me if I
> ever want to punch you in the nose you will know when you have been punched
> in the nose.
Listen, piss pot, you wanna punch me in the nose, give it your best
shot. And I’ll defend myself with any tools and any actions I see
fit, up to and including deadly force. Don’t come to a gun fight only
armed with your fists. If you threaten me with physical force, I’ll
defend myself any way I please.
> For now I do not feel that people like you are in any way a
> priority to me.
You are on the national committee of a party of people like me,
including me, and people who like me.
> I have clarified OVER AND OVER again that my interest in
> conference calls had nothing to do with anything regarding secrecy.
I don’t care. A tool which can be applied to evil purposes is going
to be applied to those purposes. If not by you then by someone.
Don’t design flaws into the system. Flawed people are going to get
into the system and abuse it. The Bush government had no intention of
its unitary executive powers being used by a Democrat president.
Guess what? They don’t get to choose.
> I am
> affiliated with organizations that use national conference calls that are
> streamed on the web for meetings all the time.
I don’t care what groups you belong to. If the Hitler Youth use
national conference calls, so what?
> If you don’t like that, don’t vote for me next time I am up for the seat.
I didn’t vote for you. I didn’t vote for anyone on the committee. I
don’t vote for people. I don’t consent to be governed.
> I am now finished with communicating with you.
No you are not. You are finished being an arrogant prick.
> Any further attempts by you
> to converse with me will be considered harassment.
Bring it on.
42 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm
@29 Oh, Libertarian Girl, you give the *best* non-sequiturs. lol
Thanks for the info. I did not know he was on the LNC as an alternate, nor that he had resigned. I looked at http://www.azlp.org/ but their news feed ends in February.
Maybe someone should call him up?
@31 I see the relevance now. Thanks for answering the questions. You rock.
43 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm
@29 Oh, Libertarian Girl, you give the *best* non-sequiturs. lol
IPR can not be held liable for any sequitual harassment that takes place in our comment sequitions.
44 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm
@32-33 You are welcome to believe any thing you wish to believe. “You believe what you wanna believe, but you don’t have to live like a refugee.”
45 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm
@43 But that doesn’t follow!
46 LibertarianGirl // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm
paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm
@29 Oh, Libertarian Girl, you give the *best* non-sequiturs. lol
IPR can not be held liable for any sequitual harassment that takes place in our comment sequitions.
ROFLMAO … all the boys say I give the best non-sequiturs
47 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm
ROFLMAO … all the boys say I give the best non-sequiturs
I am no collectivist second-hander. I shan’t rely on second-hand information. Second-handers must be purged!
But that doesn’t follow!
I’m a leader, not a follower!
You believe what you wanna believe
I believe it is time to break out the hard liquor here.
48 paulie cannoli // Dec 9, 2008 at 4:59 pm
all the boys say I give the best non-sequiturs
Pedosequituals must be purged! PUUUURRRGGGEEE!
49 VTV // Dec 9, 2008 at 6:08 pm
You never apologized to me in any fashion. That is absurd.
50 JimDavidson // Dec 9, 2008 at 7:13 pm
@49, No, in fact, Neil, I apologised to you quite handsomely, and in several places.
@40 I wrote, “If you think that by raising concerns about the process, and asking
questions about why you want to change a process that has been working for others, I have insulted you, then I’m sorry that you feel that way. If you think any of my specific words were insulting to your honor, then I apologise for those words.”
What is true, though, is that you have insulted Todd and you have insulted me, and you have not apologised. Of course, I believe you are too arrogant to apologise to either one of us.
51 Jeremy Young // Dec 9, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Paulie, great coverage — keep it up. As a minor point, if you want to be particularly careful when posting excerpts, you could use ellipses to indicate where portions have been left out.
52 Trent Hill // Dec 9, 2008 at 8:02 pm
“ROFLMAO … all the boys say I give the best non-sequiturs”
LibertarianGirl wins quote of the day.
53 Trent Hill // Dec 9, 2008 at 8:02 pm
The *highly coveted* quote of the day.
54 LibertarianGirl // Dec 9, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Thanks bunches!!!
55 Thomas L. Knapp // Dec 9, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I see my name on the bcc list of a couple of transcribed messages above. Thing is, I don’t remember ever actually receiving those messages. Strange. I think I’d have remembered receiving them. Maybe my spam filters caught them or something. I’ll have to look around some more.
I don’t support moving to phone-based national committee work sessions until and unless transcription to searchable text format in real time is available/efficient, and perhaps not then.
On the other hand, I don’t believe that Neil had any anti-transparency ulterior motive in proposing phone-based committee sessions.
The rest is drama, and I’m not a competent theatre critic.
56 VTV // Dec 10, 2008 at 1:59 am
Thank you Thomas.
57 JimDavidson // Dec 10, 2008 at 2:06 am
> From: Neil Kiernan
> Subject: Re: and the final message
> To: planetaryjim@ yahoo.com
> Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 11:45 PM
> And no, particularly since you still have been a total ass
> about this whole
> situation I have no intention of apologizing to you.
58 VTV // Dec 10, 2008 at 2:17 am
Yep. That’s what I said. Am I supposed to be embarrassed for telling someone who has behaved like you did that I have no intention of telling you I am sorry for telling you exactly what I thought of the way you were behaving?
But remember, this is all making the party look so great. And it is certainly making your involvement in it something noteworthy and all that.
You going to post the emails with what you said to me in the first place to offend me? Funny how they are hearing everything I said and nothing you said.
59 paulie cannoli // Dec 10, 2008 at 2:41 am
Is anyone here besides Jim, Todd and Neil interested in reading the history of their personal squabbles? Please let us know.
And yes, I know I can scroll past them (I have scrolled past most in fact). I’m just curious as to whether anyone besides the principals is in fact positively interested and willing to say so.
60 VTV // Dec 10, 2008 at 2:53 am
Well I can tell you this much paulie. If he didn’t feel the need to bring it here I never would have.
61 paulie cannoli // Dec 10, 2008 at 3:05 am
VTV,
It does not matter to me who started it. I’m curious as to whether anyone who is not you, Jim, or Todd is interested in reading it. I do not know that no one is; maybe there are people on the edge of their chair. I am not saying you are not allowed to carry on, even if no one answers my question. But, it is not a question which you, Jim or Todd can answer, since it is not addressed to you. Of course, you can speak to it; you just can’t answer it. Nor did I say or ask anything other than the specific question I posed.
62 paulie cannoli // Dec 10, 2008 at 3:06 am
By the way, before anyone answers my question by saying they are NOT interested, that is not what I asked. I take it as a given that there are people who are not interested in any given conversation.
63 JimDavidson // Dec 10, 2008 at 3:57 am
Paulie, I’m not interested in this conversation. I think that you didn’t include the case that any of Jim, Todd, Neil might not be interested.
Neil has settled it in a full and final fashion. I’ve apologised, because I’m honorable and courteous. He hasn’t, because he’s neither of those things.
And, yes, that is choice irony, isn’t it? I get to be the courteous one.
Thanks for excerpting the interesting parts of my essay in your report here. As above, I think that was sensible and intelligent.
64 George Phillies // Dec 10, 2008 at 3:53 pm
For more sunshine
And for more non-secret information, go to http://LibertyForAll.net
Sexual Harassment at National?
by Sean Haugh
Posted in Dangerous Politics by R Lee Wrights on December 10th, 2008
65 VTV // Dec 10, 2008 at 4:06 pm
It’s hillarious to me that Jim Davidson can try to say he is “honorable and courteous” after the way he has acted. It’s absolutely silly how he think he can just turn all this around and make it look like I am supposedly victimizing him.
Sorry man, that’s a total sham, along with your “apology”. There is nothing dishonorable about me calling you out for being the troll you are. Nor am in any way obligated to be courteous to you when you behaved the way you did.
Nice try Jim.
66 JimDavidson // Dec 10, 2008 at 11:11 pm
@65 “Sorry man, that’s a total sham” is the closest Neil has come to an apology.
The thing is, Neil, when someone says words that give offense, which happens all the time, the code of courtesy and honor requires they apologise for giving offense. Or, you know, show up to the duel to give satisfaction. But, evidently they never taught you this concept.
So, yes, Neil, you’ve been extraordinarily rude to me and other people in the Boston Tea Party. You’ve called me names here, on the Boston Tea Party national site, on our discussion lists, on the Justin.tv chat. You’ve offended me deeply. You offended Todd so much that he wanted to destroy the BTP MI and leave the party forever – I guess ganging up on him with your buddy George Donnelly was your idea of good thinking.
You aren’t obligated to be courteous to me, but since I did apologise, and you didn’t, I am now exonerated. And you aren’t. You employ two standards. One standard for you – you get to curse and yell and jump up and down and throw feces – and another for me. I am expected to be polite.
My apology wasn’t a sham. I clearly said that if any of my words offended your honor, I apologise for saying them. Let me see if I can make that even better for you: I’m very sorry that you were so maddened by my words that you became childish and insincere about your work for the Boston Tea Party.
I continue to ask anyone and everyone to produce the least scintilla of evidence that you’ve done recruiting, state affiliate formation, or any other work to make your childish antics worth putting up with. So far, I’ve seen nothing from you but insults, a lame campaign for public office, and a demand to destroy at least one state affiliate. Oh, and a complaint from you that a pair of Yahoo groups that have been used successfully since 2006 were inadequate to your sensitive needs for forum software to hold your hand and reassure your confidence.
Are you good for anything?
67 JimDavidson // Dec 12, 2008 at 12:25 am
The answer to the last question at 66 is, no, Neil isn’t good for anything. He just likes to insult people, knock state affiliates out of the Boston Tea Party, and make fun of its members.
Leave a Comment