Cosa candidacy

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Mar 14, 2019 18:13:19 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Most people who read Witt and don't have us blocked are forced to learn about these things, since they get brought up in virtually every discussion.

Is there a word for the situation where someone punches you in the face 20 times, you punch back once, and he cries about you bullying, holding a grudge, and appealing to you to stop the hate and violence? One other than chutzpah, of course?

I suppose it would be very convenient for you, politically, if all Talossans would agree that mentioning anything you'd done, every, in a critical way was "bullying" or "grudge-holding". Then you would be free to campaign entirely on the hot-air of promises.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. I will continue to remind Talossa why your track record in politics is a negative, obstructionist one; although I pledge to do so courteously.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Mar 14, 2019 18:13:19 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Miestra, not only am I not publishing a story about it, I never even brought it up in public.

... I know, I just pledged to be courteous, but there is no other way to respond to this but: You lying hound.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Mar 14, 2019 19:22:36 GMT -6 Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. said:

I don't know about corruption, but people like Schiva are actually mentally corrupt. In fact for her blabbering and naming me in one of her FB posts with vindictive remarks, I chose to block her posts.

My advice to fellow Talossans: Choose your friends/ foes well in Talossa, or they may create havoc with your life outside.

So is a 24-hour witt suspension in order? Asking for a friend. 

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

No, the more that affiliates of the RUMP party show themselves incapable of debate apart from slurs and appeals to victimhood, the better, so let him go nuts.

I still want to hear from AD whether he'd approve of a direct-democracy Cosa, though. THAT is a political question that he curiously avoids in favour of poor-poor-AD-plz-no-bully posturing.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Mar 14, 2019 19:49:00 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Mar 14, 2019 18:13:19 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Miestra, not only am I not publishing a story about it, I never even brought it up in public.

... I know, I just pledged to be courteous, but there is no other way to respond to this but: You lying hound.

Read the thread. That was in direct response to V bringing it up and asking me about it:

Feb 1, 2019 7:16:17 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

I do not speak for the FreeDems, but I'm more interested in whether you intend to return the money given to you for your "newspaper" that never got published after you were exposed for using those funds to write a hit piece.

I'm not going to ask for an apology, but how about in lieu of that, you agree to just let this thread go and do something fun, instead?

In answer to your question, no, I do not support direct democracy. I believe that citizens should all be able to participate if they want to, but shouldn't lose their political voice if they choose not to.

I guess the only way this is going to work is if I block you. You can't help yourself. I guess you will mock me or call me names now with impunity, but since you were going to do that anyway, there's little loss.

Bye. Sorry it's come to this, but I think it's for everyone's good.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I hope someone will point out to Alex that, not only is it pretty weak for the leader of a political party to refuse to engage with another political party leader during election season, but that this is not even the first time he's done this. Last time I was FreeDem leader, he pointedly refused to debate me because I was "so mean".

This is the guy who's running in this election on a "too much politics, why can't we all be friends" platform... and his answer to doing this is to block his political opponents.

This guy does not deserve even one of your votes. Someone repost this so he can see it.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Mar 14, 2019 23:39:50 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I hope someone will point out to Alex that, not only is it pretty weak for the leader of a political party to refuse to engage with another political party leader during election season, but that this is not even the first time he's done this. Last time I was FreeDem leader, he pointedly refused to debate me because I was "so mean".

This is the guy who's running in this election on a "too much politics, why can't we all be friends" platform... and his answer to doing this is to block his political opponents.

This guy does not deserve even one of your votes. Someone repost this so he can see it.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

*sigh* I guess there's no point if she's so determined to have big nasty arguments that she will enlist other people to make them for her. Folks, I am trying, but she is making this way harder than it needs to be.

Miestra, why would you possibly insist that I have to talk to you? Can't we just go and do our own things -- create fun stuff and enjoy Talossa? We seldom solve things when we argue... it just gets into a big nasty multi-page fight that gets you upset. Everyone is sick to death of it. It is boring and nasty and it is pushing people away.

How is this supposed to work?

Is the idea that you can say whatever you want, including absurd personal insults, and I'm not allowed to ignore you? What possible joy can that bring you?

Is this the only thing you like to actually do in Talossa any more? Why would you cling to it, insisting that it is wrong for me to ignore you?

Just go and have fun. Live your life and ignore me. If you see a post that I make, resist the urge to leap in and try to score points by bringing up the same grudges over and over. I don't bring up "rough music," when you harassed me by following me from one thread to another for months and insulting me every time I said anything anywhere on Witt. I don't bring it up because that kind of obsession isn't healthy for me or you or Talossa. I moved on and did fun stuff, instead. We all have these grudges because we're in a small and contentious community for a long time, and it is just crushing the life out of this place. It's unpleasant to read and it sprawls everywhere, and so people stop reading Witt.

Just stop. Find some joy here, instead.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

I drafted a better post to this effect last night but didn't hit post. It got lost when I opened my phone's browser this morning.

In any event, AD, just stop. Take a moment and reflect. There's a lot of bad blood here. You've never acknowledged your specific actions and how they've impacted people. You can't expect us to just forget the past because you had a proverbial come to jesus moment. At this point, apologies mean nothing without action. So even if you did actually apologize, for some of us, that won't be enough without a change in conduct. I'm not going to rehash every one of your slights, perceived or otherwise, that I've found egregious and insulting because it will mean nothing, and we'll resort to whataboutism. Also, as stated, even if you did apoligize, that would be meaningless absent an actual change in conduct.

I'm not saying I'm innocent in perpetuating the political and personal trench warfare that has handicapped Talossa. I can sit here and recite every instance of our interactions and trace it back to how I perceived you or your party has slighted me or Dame Miestrâ. But where will that get us? What I won't tolerate, however, is intentional falsehoods about Dame Miesrtâ or the FreeDems. So if you want to actually begin to heal, then just stop playing the victim.

I'm trying to be civil here. I'm trying my hardest to express my sincerity in this post. I realize that you will likely never own your actions or how hurtful they are/have been. But what I'm trying to do is hit a sorta reset button. I'd like to approach you as I do opposing counsel in my professional career--legal adversaries but not personal enemies. We (lawyers) may write a brief calling an opposing argument frivolous or nonsensical, but I'm also sitting in the courtroom joking with opposing counsel. It's not personal. But again, we (you and I) have  years of personal bad blood.

If you're truly sincere about healing the partisan rift and old wounds, then stop playing the victim. Appreciate our position, even if you dont agree with it, and work with us as political adversaries but not personal enemies. Only then do I think we can actually begin the healing process and begin to move on. But the more you attempt erasure, the more we dig our trenches. The ball is literally in your court to be the example you purport to be through your conduct. I'm trying to do the same, but you're not making it easy. I'm sincerely asking you to make it easy, so I can also make it easy. But when you make incendiary posts accusing us of something, you don't make it easy. 

I don't know  anymore if you're truely being disingenuous or truly believe you're right. I don't care anymore. What I want to see, from both of us, in the next Government, is to engage each other honestly and in good faith. If I propose legislation that, even if perfectly drafted, you could never vote for, be unfront about it. Tell me that you can't vote for it under any circumstance. If you think it would pass anyway and would prefer to, at minimum, see certain changes to mitigate some issues you perceive, I'm open. But dont give the illusion that the changes will mean gaining your support. 

I pledge to offer the same courtesy. But to get there, you must meet us half-way. 

So please, just take a moment to appreciate what I'm getting at. I'm not saying everything is/would be forgiven/forgotten--I'm offering a shovel to dig us out of this trench. 

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

This is not relevant, but has anyone heard from Miestra today? Is she okay, are her family okay?

[Eðo Grischun]

Mar 15, 2019 9:41:15 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

This is not relevant, but has anyone heard from Miestra today? Is she okay, are her family okay?

She has posted on Facebook since the attack took place.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Ok, good.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Alex, I can't help but feel that some of your entreaties to joy ring a little hollow here.  There's a lot of reheated material from our Chatzy conversation.  And I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're being awfully dismissive of Miestra.  The two of you are lead candidates of the largest political parties in a general election, for the two of you not to engage would be the odder course to steer.

Let's get to brass tacks.  Straight up.  The acting Seneschal has accused you of a history of obstructionism and quashing.  What do you say to that?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't know about "reheated," but yes, I have been saying some of these things pretty consistently for a while. At the start of the last term, I posted about how I thought this was the biggest problem, and laid out a bunch of suggestions (like shrinking the government to only three people, making the military a cultural organization instead, etc). It should not seem surprising that I have repeatedly discussed a lot of this stuff that I think is very important. Similarly, I have been trying for a while to avoid rising to provocation or taking pot-shots for no reason. I have also said as much multiple times for quite a while. And I have often said how tedious and annoying the whole dynamic has been.

I do not have any particular reply to the acting Seneschal. I am not sure what obstructionism means in this context. It would seem to imply that I do nothing but stand in the way of change, but that wouldn't really make any sense to anyone who's been following Talossan politics or history. Did I obstruct the effort to destroy the OrgLaw? I did not wish to see the Organic Law repealed and replaced, so I worked my butt off to stop that from happening. Instead, I actively sponsored and argued for alternate amendments that would remedy some of the issues identified.

So if that makes me obstructionist, then I honestly don't know what the term means any more.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Mar 15, 2019 7:07:32 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

I drafted a better post to this effect last night but didn't hit post. It got lost when I opened my phone's browser this morning.

In any event, AD, just stop. Take a moment and reflect. There's a lot of bad blood here. You've never acknowledged your specific actions and how they've impacted people. You can't expect us to just forget the past because you had a proverbial come to jesus moment. At this point, apologies mean nothing without action. So even if you did actually apologize, for some of us, that won't be enough without a change in conduct. I'm not going to rehash every one of your slights, perceived or otherwise, that I've found egregious and insulting because it will mean nothing, and we'll resort to whataboutism. Also, as stated, even if you did apoligize, that would be meaningless absent an actual change in conduct.

I'm not saying I'm innocent in perpetuating the political and personal trench warfare that has handicapped Talossa. I can sit here and recite every instance of our interactions and trace it back to how I perceived you or your party has slighted me or Dame Miestrâ. But where will that get us? What I won't tolerate, however, is intentional falsehoods about Dame Miesrtâ or the FreeDems. So if you want to actually begin to heal, then just stop playing the victim.

I'm trying to be civil here. I'm trying my hardest to express my sincerity in this post. I realize that you will likely never own your actions or how hurtful they are/have been. But what I'm trying to do is hit a sorta reset button. I'd like to approach you as I do opposing counsel in my professional career--legal adversaries but not personal enemies. We (lawyers) may write a brief calling an opposing argument frivolous or nonsensical, but I'm also sitting in the courtroom joking with opposing counsel. It's not personal. But again, we (you and I) have  years of personal bad blood.

If you're truly sincere about healing the partisan rift and old wounds, then stop playing the victim. Appreciate our position, even if you dont agree with it, and work with us as political adversaries but not personal enemies. Only then do I think we can actually begin the healing process and begin to move on. But the more you attempt erasure, the more we dig our trenches. The ball is literally in your court to be the example you purport to be through your conduct. I'm trying to do the same, but you're not making it easy. I'm sincerely asking you to make it easy, so I can also make it easy. But when you make incendiary posts accusing us of something, you don't make it easy. 

I don't know  anymore if you're truely being disingenuous or truly believe you're right. I don't care anymore. What I want to see, from both of us, in the next Government, is to engage each other honestly and in good faith. If I propose legislation that, even if perfectly drafted, you could never vote for, be unfront about it. Tell me that you can't vote for it under any circumstance. If you think it would pass anyway and would prefer to, at minimum, see certain changes to mitigate some issues you perceive, I'm open. But dont give the illusion that the changes will mean gaining your support. 

I pledge to offer the same courtesy. But to get there, you must meet us half-way. 

So please, just take a moment to appreciate what I'm getting at. I'm not saying everything is/would be forgiven/forgotten--I'm offering a shovel to dig us out of this trench. 

I pledge to engage on legislation thusly:

* If I support a bill, I will say so. I may suggest changes to improve it.

* If I am unsure about a bill, I will say so. I may suggest changes to improve it, but even if those changes are made, it is no surety of my support. I actively participate and listen to arguments, even from people with whom I frequently disagree. If there is a change that would satisfy any concerns I might have, I will state as such, and support the result if no other problems come to light.

* If I oppose a bill or am deeply skeptical, I will say so. I may suggest changes to improve it, even though I don't support it, because I think a bad bill can be made less bad.

I also am happy to renew what I said earlier and what I have been saying: I have no interest in extended, nasty fights involving personal attacks. I sincerely do not believe I have ever initiated such in years, and have tried to limit myself to replying once attacked. Miestra's link earlier was a pretty perfect case-in-point. But I have been trying, even further, to minimize or ignore provocation when it arrives (as this thread demonstrates). I will continue to do my best in that regard.

V, I can truly make this pledge with absolute good faith, no exaggeration, and no dissembling:

I will not make personal attacks on you or Miestra, nor will I disparage your character, to the absolute best of my ability. I may criticize specific behavior or overall patterns of behavior, but always in a manner that is based in verifiable fact and done with courtesy. I will engage on legislation or other initiatives in good faith and with an eye towards their merits.

In return, please treat me the same. If we can both do that, as we are doing now, I think we will get along 100% fine.