Eluvatar

SillyString:
It's perfectly relevant to point out where someone's current position is completely the opposite of their previous position, and to question why this is so. Doing so allows others to better their own understanding, and come to a more informed decision.

Is there a compelling difference between the situations Enif and Elu found themselves in, such that the former should have been removed and the latter should not have been? If so, knowing the crucial difference in what appears to be an identical situation of losing RA membership is important.

Has Grosse devoted some time to internal reflection and critical analysis, and determined his previous support for removing Enif was misplaced? If so, knowing what changed his mind might help others come to the same conclusion.

Does Grosse simply like Elu more than Enif? If so, that would be a reason to weight his words more lightly, and examine them more carefully, lest we fall into the trap of favoritism or bias.

One's consistency over time directly relates to the logical merit others can ascribe to the stances one takes. Pointing out inconsistencies and asking for clarification is a way of determining that logical merit.
Click to expand...
The whole line of questioning is irrelevant and imaterial to the issue at hand, namely the issue of the requirements of the Bill of Rights as to notice and an opportunity to be heard for the removal of members from the Security Council, and the need to review and revise the provisions of the legal provisions concerning the Security Council in view of these issues, and the in game changes on influence (SPDR) and how they impact the admission and membership requirements on the Security Council.

The laws affecting the Security Council have changed both de jure and de facto during the time of my leave of absence, and what my position may have been at some point in the past has little value in the current discussion. I'm not going into a rehash mode for someone's entertainment value. Not going there, and not getting into it. That's part of the reason why I had to go into a leave of absence in the first place because of the medical impact of the stress, any why my focus of activity will be on the Security Council and as an admin, and not much anywhere else.

I am going to try my best to simply ignore a certain poster since that is what I should do for my health. I will bet that that poster will deliberately fail to offer the same ignorance in return. I'm not on the forums for any extended amount of time, and getting to catching up on tendering endorsements to all of the WA members in TNP is not something that will happen often.

I have pledged to help work up a set of changes for the provisions governing the Security Council and that is what I will be doing here and in the SC area; beyond that I plan to cast abstentions at every opportunity, although that may not be every time. The only thing I plan to raise regularly is the role of the Bill of Rights in limiting governmental power and protecting the rights of individual nations; this seems to be a chronic issue, and it is something I have done ever since the Bill of Rights was first enacted in the lead up to the 2005 constitutional convention, There's no reason for me to act any differently on that score now.
 
I would like to point out that there has been no change to the SC laws regarding RA membership requirements in the SC since the time of the Enif discussion, the only thing that has changed on that matter was the Courts ruled SC members to be members of the government and thus mandated RA membership for all members.

So previously, Gross was fine with the idea of kicking out SC members who lost RA membership, and that was without the Court ruling backing him up. Now, with the Court ruling firmly behind him, he's vehemently against against the idea of kicking out SC members who lost RA membership.

I ask, why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top