A Defense of Public Discussion
Day 426, 04:47
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Tommy Tommasino
In response to 'an open letter to the president, congressman, public' by Shadow.
A Defense of Public Discussion
The Atlantis 'Proposal'
- This was never a proposal in the first place, just a thread put up for discussion, which I believe is perfectly acceptable in 'foreign affairs discussion', given this is the arena for public foreign affairs discussion, and has a topic brought up a great deal in the media it was a relevant and necessary discussion. Someone - me in this case - suggesting an alternative to the current set up should be welcomed, as a country we should seek to maximize our options.
There is general discontent with Atlantis, see the letters I've posted in general discussion. Yes I'm sure you can find a lot who think it's all rosy, however if you're honest with yourself I think you'll have to agree that there's a lot of feeling against Atlantis at the moment. As a politician you have to bring these kind of discussions up. You seemingly want no discussion on matters which you disagree with. Please remember while you may be part of an undemocratic body, this is supposedly a democratic country in essence where everyone has their right to voice their opinion.
On the House of Lords Reform
Around 40-45 people expressed discontent in the forum poll on the current House of Lords situation. That's 40-45 active eUKers - that's quite a lot of people in terms of *active* citizens who disagree with the current set up. Of course you'll say that these people represent almost no-one in terms of the population. Yet you are also one of those who says that Congress elections are basically frauds. It seems you will accept no kind of public opinion, which makes me chuckle - it will always be fraudulent opinion in some way.
Yes you've clearly given a lot of your time to eUK, but there's really no reason why you can't just suggest amendments to legislation before they go to HoC voting.
I feel that the House of Lords Reform is drawing to a close. I am not confident that it will pass Commons currently and will be myself be backing Rayfs minor edit proposal which I see as a step in the right direction at least - sorting out the conflicting legislation that exists.
Inexperience
You can try and pass off my views as inexperienced in order to convince the public that I'm an idiot with a silly proposal, but 'inexperience' is often a card played when you don't have a better argument, I'm pretty sure its mentioned by you or Dish on every single of the 18 pages of thread concerning the Lords Reform.
Most Lords *who posted* including yourself early on in discussion of the HoL said the point of the HoL was to give advice and suggestions and it was necessary to stop mistakes in legislation being passed. Therefore this was considered in the proposal, so it allowed for Lords to make a difference to legislation before it goes to commons proposal. This was a compromise, somewhere between abolishment which I was originally for, and how it is now. It allows for Lords to continue as an advice body without the indefinite and unfair powers they currently have. That suddenly this idea was rejected (by a few) to me displays more a grip on power than a grip on the idea of sharing experience.
You hide behind this veil of experience, and list your past positions but I'd also put forward that this stops you having a balanced opinion. Of course you're going to back the Lords, and of course you're going to back Atlantis.
Misrepresentation
You also take my words too far. I've never suggested the leaving of Atlantis suddenly, merely that the current CP look into the possibility of making arrangements for an alternative with a view to leaving (in the long term). You also in your article make it appear that these are my views alone, but I'm sure you'll have to agree if you see recent media, posts on forums in connection with Atlantis that that's simply untrue.
You also mislead a number of times in the above article, which disappoints me given the fact that you have spoken at great length in the relevant discussion threads about placing 'trust' in the experience of the Lords. I don't place trust in people who mislead or are sketchy with the truth to me usually.
Firstly you list that I have one argument against the HoL, that being that they are unelected. If you read my article on the matter, you'll see there's actually rather a number of arguments, yet you're leading people to believe its based on one thing. This is an unfair and untrue representation.
You seem to think that people who have held power in the past have some right to hold on to some of this power indefinitely (in the Lords). I think you speak from a rather bias point of view considering you are one of these very people, (as happens to be another who argued to strongly against this proposal in the forums).
Secondly you make this proposal something to do with the proposal that was rejected by Lords (but sent back with amendments) or something to do with the MDU vote. a) the MDU vote is not a proposal and never has been, its merely a discussion which currently has no resolution. b) the Lords reform bill is not a reaction to anything to do with the Lords, it is a long thought out, discussed (with including two Lords) and compromised reform. It is a lie and duping of the public to suggest that this is a reactionary gesture, it was discussed for some length on party forums (though the resulting proposal was my own and independent of the party, i was merely gathering opinion), as well as on the previous eUK forums where a similar opinion poll was held - were you not around to see that? Thats misleading #2.
The idea for HoL did come from Stan Wephen, the same citizen who I put ideas for my proposal past (via MSN Messenger) before posting on public discussion, and who gave me a couple of ideas for edits which were duly noted.
I also put to you mislead #3 that I've been nagging for 18 pages. I think you'll find that you've been arguing against my proposal for 18 pages, and i've been responding to your attacks, many of which are to do with my person or my party, again which is ridiculous since this was not a party proposal but an independent citizen proposal, but this is a dirty tool used to convince others against my opinion. Rather than focusing on the issues at hand, it is the person who becomes the focus.
Public Discussion
Whats presented in your current media article bares little correlation to a) anything I've said, or b) truth and reality. The way you personalize and make partisan your attacks also makes a mockery of 'public discussion'. Its meant to be exactly what it says, but your aggression (not yours solely I'll admit) I would argue has done nothing but put people off actually involving themselves in the discussion. Sometimes I too have become a little too heated, but have always apologized in private message and acknowledged I was wrong in doing so. You need to listen a little more to other people's opinions, particularly when they are shared by a fair number of people - even if there are many who will agree with you also.
Country Devastation?
Next... This isn't devastating for our country Shadow, I'm pretty sure the majority of the country would agree with it - although of course I cannot prove this but if you consider response outside the Lords themselves so far, I would argue the majority is in favour of some kind of reform (whether my exact proposal or not). I agree we should honour those who give a lot to eUK, granted. But to reward them with indefinite power in eUK is ridiculous. If you're going to have the Lords in its current set up it must be elected.
Untruths
So in conclusion I accuse you of leading people astray in your recent article as it is full of untruths as well as being completely disrespectful of other peoples opinions, simply because you disagree does not mean that everyone else has to, and again does not mean that you are right 100% of the time. This is what worries me about your personal attacks (on experience or my party for example). You think you have a right for your opinion to be accepted by everyone simply because you've been here longer. There is no right to this.
Patriotism
Lastly, I feel strongly against your appeal to 'being patriotic' either. That's actually laughable, something I wouldn't expect from you either - you argue strongly despite the personal attacks and I'm aware of the work you've done before for eUK and respect it, that I disagree with you on Lords or other proposals is not a personal problem, and I'd hope we could talk normally outside the debate area. Simply because you feel strongly however doesn't mean that if people disagree with you they are being unpatriotic, and I (and i'm sure the other at least 40 forum members who voted for change out of the 80) take offense to this. As politicians both working for what we consider the best of eUK we are both 'patriots'. That we have different ideas and opinions is something natural in politics itself. I don't take issue with this, merely the way they are expressed.
As a politician you of course have the right to express your opinions as we all do, so its not the publication of your article I take offense to at all, but the untruths within it.
Signed Tommy.
Average citizen of eUK who has opinions and shares them, and defends his democratic right to do so.
Its a sad fact that due to attacks on MDU in relation to my public discussion thread on the House of Lords, I have to reiterate that everything I say in the above article is my own personal view and not that of my party. I have a right to express my personal opinion, and acknowledge that not everyone will agree with it. Trying to deface a party of someones individual person based on disagreement however is uncalled for and should not be accepted.
The above all being said I commend you for several strong arguments and well written responses. I accept your disagreement with my proposals, and you make a strong case which I have responded to. It is the element of attack on a personal and party level that I take offense to however. I see your article in public - since there is no current proposal out in the House of Commons - merely as an effort to once again attack and deface my person and turn people against me.
A Defense of Public Discussion
The Atlantis 'Proposal'
- This was never a proposal in the first place, just a thread put up for discussion, which I believe is perfectly acceptable in 'foreign affairs discussion', given this is the arena for public foreign affairs discussion, and has a topic brought up a great deal in the media it was a relevant and necessary discussion. Someone - me in this case - suggesting an alternative to the current set up should be welcomed, as a country we should seek to maximize our options.
There is general discontent with Atlantis, see the letters I've posted in general discussion. Yes I'm sure you can find a lot who think it's all rosy, however if you're honest with yourself I think you'll have to agree that there's a lot of feeling against Atlantis at the moment. As a politician you have to bring these kind of discussions up. You seemingly want no discussion on matters which you disagree with. Please remember while you may be part of an undemocratic body, this is supposedly a democratic country in essence where everyone has their right to voice their opinion.
On the House of Lords Reform
Around 40-45 people expressed discontent in the forum poll on the current House of Lords situation. That's 40-45 active eUKers - that's quite a lot of people in terms of *active* citizens who disagree with the current set up. Of course you'll say that these people represent almost no-one in terms of the population. Yet you are also one of those who says that Congress elections are basically frauds. It seems you will accept no kind of public opinion, which makes me chuckle - it will always be fraudulent opinion in some way.
Yes you've clearly given a lot of your time to eUK, but there's really no reason why you can't just suggest amendments to legislation before they go to HoC voting.
I feel that the House of Lords Reform is drawing to a close. I am not confident that it will pass Commons currently and will be myself be backing Rayfs minor edit proposal which I see as a step in the right direction at least - sorting out the conflicting legislation that exists.
Inexperience
You can try and pass off my views as inexperienced in order to convince the public that I'm an idiot with a silly proposal, but 'inexperience' is often a card played when you don't have a better argument, I'm pretty sure its mentioned by you or Dish on every single of the 18 pages of thread concerning the Lords Reform.
Most Lords *who posted* including yourself early on in discussion of the HoL said the point of the HoL was to give advice and suggestions and it was necessary to stop mistakes in legislation being passed. Therefore this was considered in the proposal, so it allowed for Lords to make a difference to legislation before it goes to commons proposal. This was a compromise, somewhere between abolishment which I was originally for, and how it is now. It allows for Lords to continue as an advice body without the indefinite and unfair powers they currently have. That suddenly this idea was rejected (by a few) to me displays more a grip on power than a grip on the idea of sharing experience.
You hide behind this veil of experience, and list your past positions but I'd also put forward that this stops you having a balanced opinion. Of course you're going to back the Lords, and of course you're going to back Atlantis.
Misrepresentation
You also take my words too far. I've never suggested the leaving of Atlantis suddenly, merely that the current CP look into the possibility of making arrangements for an alternative with a view to leaving (in the long term). You also in your article make it appear that these are my views alone, but I'm sure you'll have to agree if you see recent media, posts on forums in connection with Atlantis that that's simply untrue.
You also mislead a number of times in the above article, which disappoints me given the fact that you have spoken at great length in the relevant discussion threads about placing 'trust' in the experience of the Lords. I don't place trust in people who mislead or are sketchy with the truth to me usually.
Firstly you list that I have one argument against the HoL, that being that they are unelected. If you read my article on the matter, you'll see there's actually rather a number of arguments, yet you're leading people to believe its based on one thing. This is an unfair and untrue representation.
You seem to think that people who have held power in the past have some right to hold on to some of this power indefinitely (in the Lords). I think you speak from a rather bias point of view considering you are one of these very people, (as happens to be another who argued to strongly against this proposal in the forums).
Secondly you make this proposal something to do with the proposal that was rejected by Lords (but sent back with amendments) or something to do with the MDU vote. a) the MDU vote is not a proposal and never has been, its merely a discussion which currently has no resolution. b) the Lords reform bill is not a reaction to anything to do with the Lords, it is a long thought out, discussed (with including two Lords) and compromised reform. It is a lie and duping of the public to suggest that this is a reactionary gesture, it was discussed for some length on party forums (though the resulting proposal was my own and independent of the party, i was merely gathering opinion), as well as on the previous eUK forums where a similar opinion poll was held - were you not around to see that? Thats misleading #2.
The idea for HoL did come from Stan Wephen, the same citizen who I put ideas for my proposal past (via MSN Messenger) before posting on public discussion, and who gave me a couple of ideas for edits which were duly noted.
I also put to you mislead #3 that I've been nagging for 18 pages. I think you'll find that you've been arguing against my proposal for 18 pages, and i've been responding to your attacks, many of which are to do with my person or my party, again which is ridiculous since this was not a party proposal but an independent citizen proposal, but this is a dirty tool used to convince others against my opinion. Rather than focusing on the issues at hand, it is the person who becomes the focus.
Public Discussion
Whats presented in your current media article bares little correlation to a) anything I've said, or b) truth and reality. The way you personalize and make partisan your attacks also makes a mockery of 'public discussion'. Its meant to be exactly what it says, but your aggression (not yours solely I'll admit) I would argue has done nothing but put people off actually involving themselves in the discussion. Sometimes I too have become a little too heated, but have always apologized in private message and acknowledged I was wrong in doing so. You need to listen a little more to other people's opinions, particularly when they are shared by a fair number of people - even if there are many who will agree with you also.
Country Devastation?
Next... This isn't devastating for our country Shadow, I'm pretty sure the majority of the country would agree with it - although of course I cannot prove this but if you consider response outside the Lords themselves so far, I would argue the majority is in favour of some kind of reform (whether my exact proposal or not). I agree we should honour those who give a lot to eUK, granted. But to reward them with indefinite power in eUK is ridiculous. If you're going to have the Lords in its current set up it must be elected.
Untruths
So in conclusion I accuse you of leading people astray in your recent article as it is full of untruths as well as being completely disrespectful of other peoples opinions, simply because you disagree does not mean that everyone else has to, and again does not mean that you are right 100% of the time. This is what worries me about your personal attacks (on experience or my party for example). You think you have a right for your opinion to be accepted by everyone simply because you've been here longer. There is no right to this.
Patriotism
Lastly, I feel strongly against your appeal to 'being patriotic' either. That's actually laughable, something I wouldn't expect from you either - you argue strongly despite the personal attacks and I'm aware of the work you've done before for eUK and respect it, that I disagree with you on Lords or other proposals is not a personal problem, and I'd hope we could talk normally outside the debate area. Simply because you feel strongly however doesn't mean that if people disagree with you they are being unpatriotic, and I (and i'm sure the other at least 40 forum members who voted for change out of the 80) take offense to this. As politicians both working for what we consider the best of eUK we are both 'patriots'. That we have different ideas and opinions is something natural in politics itself. I don't take issue with this, merely the way they are expressed.
As a politician you of course have the right to express your opinions as we all do, so its not the publication of your article I take offense to at all, but the untruths within it.
Signed Tommy.
Average citizen of eUK who has opinions and shares them, and defends his democratic right to do so.
Its a sad fact that due to attacks on MDU in relation to my public discussion thread on the House of Lords, I have to reiterate that everything I say in the above article is my own personal view and not that of my party. I have a right to express my personal opinion, and acknowledge that not everyone will agree with it. Trying to deface a party of someones individual person based on disagreement however is uncalled for and should not be accepted.
The above all being said I commend you for several strong arguments and well written responses. I accept your disagreement with my proposals, and you make a strong case which I have responded to. It is the element of attack on a personal and party level that I take offense to however. I see your article in public - since there is no current proposal out in the House of Commons - merely as an effort to once again attack and deface my person and turn people against me.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
please excuse any bad English, it was a rather long article and despite being pretty much fluent I got pretty tired of typing!
Brilliant reponse.
The fact that shadow felt the need to personally attack you and the MDU simply because you differ on opinions, and then beg people to vote his article up clearly shows his lack of maturity.
The power has obviously gone to his head.
what can I say, this text has more lies in it then Saddam's victory speech when the US was before the gates of Baghdad.
pathetic.
you are a powerhungry guy who understands nothing of e-republik. I advise you start with a more simpel game before you start with this.
say, what about minesweeper. that should be hard enough for you
Was that really needed? At least behave like you want your opinions to count for something shadow
he accuses me of writing a text with lies. Yet my text has more truths in it then his. He is the most incompetent person I've ever seen in this game. He wants to pretend he knows so much, yet knows so little. Basically his text doesn't add anything new. He doesn't really add much arguments, he doesn't really give give any facts, it's just a hollow text, that's why I'm not even going to take the effort of replying on it. It's basically not worth it.
All I can say to e-UK is: give this powerhungry guy power and he'll destroy everything so many ppl build up over the time they've been in e-rep. He doesn't wants to reform the UK, he wants to destroy everything that's decently working.
'he wants to destroy everything that's decently working'.
i made one proposal on House of Lords moderate reform (not complete abolishment that some support).
i've made no other proposals.
discussion on Atlantis should be encouraged - we as politicians should be working to encourage people to express their views, particularly the younger players. Discussion of current affairs and a wide spread of opinions is something to be embraced, not rejected.
I'm not trying to give any new ideas or arguments in the above text, merely defend myself and my right to express opinion without being flamed.
come on shadow you are better than this.
Reply to the article properly without resorting to the childish mud slinging you are doing.
'If you're going to have the Lords in its current set up it must be elected.'
So, basically what you're proposing is... another HoC?!
Great idea!
Shadow, please stop, stand back and look at what all this trolling has achieved.
Nothing.
You have lost the respect of many from all these ridiculous personal attacks, and many ordinary eUK citizens are now loosing touch with eUK politics. This is doing nothing - for the integrity of eUK politics and for yourself, please STOP now.
You've lost my respect
I've not kept up with all this much, it's too degrading to bother getting involved to be honest and Shadow, I expected more from you as a senior UK politician.
'I expected more from you as a senior UK politician.'
I think there's a point when older players start to realise this is a game and treat it as such and just have a laugh and say what they think, shadow, myself and Dish are like that, and tbh it's much more fun than licking everyone's cracks and trying to get into power - been there, done that, didn't taste that good and power wasn't all it was cracked up to be on erep tbh.
widdows9000: If you are the other "senior UK politicians" mearly want to treat this as a game, then what about thoes of us what are wanting to get involved with it? You yourself have just stated that you are more interested in having fun then being serious. What of thoes of us that are being serious how, it it helpfull to have thoes in power mucking about. If the HoL is wanting to joke about the fine, but why should people who don't want to play be allowed to make the rules?
The eUK isnt what it once was, and I no longer wish to be a part of it. In short, I'm quitting eRep.
I hope you're not accusing me of licking people's cracks.
'it it helpfull to have thoes in power mucking about. If the HoL is wanting to joke about the fine, but why should people who don't want to play be allowed to make the rules?'
You can view my posts and the other Lords' posts in the HoL section and you can see that we all take our duties there very seriously and I will continue to do so, I just speak my mind and have more fun now that I've accomplished what I want to do in regards to politics.
'I hope you're not accusing me of licking people's cracks. '
I was referring to other people in general you know, not you at all really, you at least say what you think which is something I admire greatly.
And anyway, have you got something against my fetish with weird anal licking porn?