Hm. Soooo...should Nancy Pelosi respect the integrity of the decisions made by Tom Delay?

Should the next President of the US be bound to respect the policies and decisions of George W. Bush?

Should Kevin Rudd respect the policies and decisions of John Howard and not revisit any of his decisions for a 'respectful period of time'?

Rubbish.

There is a reason that stare decisis is a judicial term, not a legislative one. Legal precedents change slowly. The will of a legislature or elected leadership can (and very often does) change overnight.

How much time had to pass in order for this re-vote to be 'respectful'?

Frankly I thought it was bad cricket for the previous talkboard to vote on this proposal DURING the previous election, more or less during a lame duck session, leaving the outcome of that vote slightly tainted in my mind in any case.

So rather than being a sign of antisocial behavior or disrespect, this motion is made in good faith and without agenda as a guage of how the CURRENT TB members feel about creating this forum.

It is (should be, imho) all about what the CURRENT TB members feel is in the best interests of Flyertalk.

It is NOT (should not be, imho) about political games, or about scoring political points, or about fip-flopping over silly claims of disrespecting what has gone before or making TOS-questionable assertions about 'antisocial behavior.'

I'd probably rarely use the forum if this motion passes. But I believe this forum is in the best interests of flyertalk. I thought so when it was proposed. I thought so when it was defeated during the election. I think so today. So as an elected member of the newly seated talkboard I made the motion. That's my JOB, as I see it.

Exactly, exactly. :(

Are you implying that I made this motion to score political points?

That's real head-shaker.

What possible points would I score by making this motion?

All I did is look at the composition of the current talkboard, saw that a 2/3 majority were either on the voting record in favor of this forum or had otherwise expressed support for the forum, knew that I thought the forum was a good idea, so made the motion.

As I say, I gain nothing if this motion passes, I lose nothing if it fails. Either a 2/3 majority of the current TB think it is a good idea or they dont. There are no political point to be scored, which is why I made that observation.

So....what in the heck are you talking about!?!?!?

If your model for the appropriate degree of respect, collegiality, and cooperation on the Talk Board is the competition between the two parties in the US House of Representatives...

Sorry, but I can't bring myself to finish that sentence. It would be too depressing.

Too depressed to address the substance of my point?

Look, the past is simply prologue.

I may not be the smartest guy here, but as noted above, I can count. And I saw that a majority of the current TB were on record in one way or another in favor of this forum, myself included.

So I should have waited to make the motion because...Dovster's feelings might get hurt because a 'respectful' amount of time has not passed!?!?!? Based on his comments on the subject, somehow I dont think that's going to happen.

And even if it did, that's no reason to keep the flyertalkers who want this forum waiting when it is, in my mind, in the best interests of flyertalk.

Is that what you think?

I would think any such conversation would more appropriately be done via PM, so as to not sidetrack the thread and keep personalities out of things. ^

Actually your reply provided me with motivation to further clarify my position, thinking and motives.

So...thank you! ^

AZ Travels the World writes:

obscure2k writes:

FlyinHawaiian

cblaised

I write:

A good idea is a good idea no matter when, or by whom, it is proposed. Supporting or opposing an idea for any reason other than one's own personal conviction as to its validity, is playing politics, and that fact will be just as apparent to next year's voters as it is to any of us now.

As strongly as I disagree with Spiff's position on this particular proposal, I respect his postion. He has vehemently opposed it right from the start, so, as much as I disagree with him, he at least gets an A++ for consistency.

So Spiff asks the membership to provide comments, but barely 24 hours later 2 TB members have already cast their votes, and a third indicates in multiple posts their support for the motion. Worse, after already voting, a TB member asks for feedback in the ONSAFFP forum on the vote.

Do you want feedback and input or simply justification for your predetermined positions?

Not starting out on the right foot IMHO...

All boards fluctuate, and since VX launched, its been busier than many other boards like Finnair, Midwest, Frontier, etc as I've pointed out countless times.

Plus, Spiff, a few weeks ago you said post volume didn't matter.

either way, whatever biases exist out there, it's not in the best interests of FT to keep eleVAte tucked away, very much could inspire another board to get going somewhere else

Thank you whindler for your input.

FWIW, while I have strong opinions, I have not yet voted. I have, however, posted my positions and the reasons therefore, specifically in hopes that someone with even better ideas than I have might step forward and disuade me, or persuade me in another direction.

I think your point is excellent. While not restricting us from voicing our initial opinions, we should all remain open to having them changed by new and compelling information, and we should all (IMHO) have the courtesy to hold back on our votes until the community has had an opportunity to speak.

Not quite.

I said I was not going to give a quantifiable post volume as a criterion for my voting for establishing a forum. I feel that setting such a magic number could encourage meaningless post padding and junk thread starting.

I've voted and, for the record, my vote was identical to my previous vote.

As I've said many times before, with very few exceptions, I've yet to meet a Forum that I didn't like or support.

I'm firmly in the "you build it and they will come" camp.

And, hey, if we build it and they don't come, we can zap it in a heartbeat if so desired. And nobody is out a single cent nor does it cost anybody more than a few posts.

We seriously need to get over the premise that we devaluate FT when creating FF forums that are requested by numerous FT'ers.

Rather than erect barriers I think we are better served by welcoming new FT members.

So is spending Saturday night debating the rules of an Internet message board, we're all being antisocial right now.

So the TB is supposed to serve the desires of its past leaders, but not the needs of FT members?

In general I agree with your point, but I feel this is a special circumstance. As I mentioned earlier, I would have preferred to wait a few months before bringing this to another vote, but since there was a motion for it, I see no reason not to support it.

The reason I was relatively quick to vote on this motion is because I really feel there wasn't a change in circumstances which would sway my vote, and support from FT members has been near unanimous for it.

One more thing to keep in mind is that just because someone hasn't posted here saying how they voted doesn't mean they haven't already voted, so keep that in mind please...

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, I really do appreciate it. I can promise I will not jump to any quick conclusions in future motions and will wait until everyone has had a chance to "speak" before voting, regardless of how strong my opinion is.:)