Replies

And being as how it is personal, I'd just as soon not have it out on the forum again

Hear hear.
I, for one, have never quite understood the reasoning of some who felt it necessary somehow to handle publicly what were strictly personal disagreements centered solely on private conversations and personal business arrangments to which none on the Forum were privy or to keep tabs on those no longer associated in any way with the Forum.
I've also never understood the penchant for some to carry their personal disagreements about this site's management or the past involvement of others to other forums in an effort to end-run around your very reasonable request that they not continue carrying on like sixth graders about FReepers long gone and water everyone's refused for so long to allow under the bridge that you can practically walk on the layer of fetid scum covering its surface.

Whatever the differences are will have to be worked out privately (if at all possible).

Ever hopeful, actually.
Regardless the ugliness and acrimony of the past, the fastest way to establish one's Big League bona fides is to act always in public with the openness, graciousness and good will that are the hallmark of professionals seeking to restore our Constitutional liberties and rule of law as well as some semblance of this nation's moral and just foundations. I think graciousness will be the best ticket for attracting both like-minded folks and those we wish to win to our side to the cause.
In light of the DC Chapter's exemplary service and -- in essence -- serving as inspiration and template for the whole notion of "Chapters" in the first place, I'll admit I'm extremely put off by the characterizing of them as somehow not with the program simply for their electing to remain as-is: a wholly separate and self-governing entity -- just like the other Chapters -- whose only difference is that their primary loyalty remains directly to this freewheeling Forum where they were born.
I see no reason they can't elect to bypasses any of the associations naturally a part of any "network" style organization seeking alliances with or funding from other entities than the FReepers themselves.
In fact, I think it rather essential in several respects and prudent of them to wait and see how the FRN performed.
The DC Chapter has a long established and painstakingly earned reputation for excellence -- Saturday after Saturday after Saturday, attendence at courthouses, hearings, rallies and all manner of political events -- in the key political city of the nation. I see no reason for them to risk compromising their painstakingly earned respect or high regard by changing in the least a formula that's worked so well for the past several years.
As you know, I have very personal feelings about all of this too. It truly pains me to see at bitter loggerheads so many folks whom I met when we were a spirited, hopeful and tight team. I'm more than simply disappointed when I see folks stooping to levels I didn't think possible.
I want to thank you for making absolutely clear the delineations between the organizations. I think because (1) things weren't quite set in stone prior to the unveiling of the FRN and (2) the subject has subsequently been approached primarily from the angle of whatever crisis or dust-up du jour was ongoing, I'm not the only who has failed to get a firm handle on the relationships.
As you know ... I'm a big believer in not muddying the waters of responsibility between entities or among those with entirely different scopes of responsibility within those organizations.
It's reassuring to know that the separation I too believe is in everyone's -- particularly your -- best interest indeed exists.
I'm every bit as hopeful as you that -- whether or not folks ever work as closely together or consider themselves friends as once they did -- the hatred and sniping and characterizing of folks as enemies or AF-er's will stop. I think the key will be to quit provoking reactions from others ... to react being the involuntary half of that equation where humans are concerned.
I'm certainly guilty of allowing myself to be provoked in the past ... as I was on this thread as those with the best possible "personal" knowledge of exactly what the DC Chapter's problems are feign puzzlement publicly at the Chapter's purposefully very lowkey, sans-fanfare decision not to join the FRN.
Thanks again for the crystal clear reply.
All the best.

Obviously you misconstrued/understood what I said. My remark about "it not making any sense" referred to this comment: Besides, to me, I think a more potent force would be to have unity, rather than divided groups and sections.

Namely that it makes no sense to fight each other when there are serious enemies out there to battle.

YOU WROTE: I, for one, have never quite understood the reasoning of some who felt it necessary somehow to handle publicly what were strictly personal disagreements centered solely on private conversations and personal business arrangments to which none on the Forum were privy or to keep tabs on those no longer associated in any way with the Forum.

I just answered the question I was asked using value neutral language. But if you believe what you assert in the above paragraph, why did bother to post what you did, thereby performing precisely what you cautioned against?

I am not taking the usual bait on this. If you believe this is a private matter, take it up privately.

Speaking of Mr. Daschle, Mark Steyn had this to say:

Meanwhile, every ten minutes or so, the funereal Senator Daschle pops up on TV and announces gloomily that he still has ‘a number of questions’ about Iraq that the President needs to answer. It must be quite a number, because, no matter how many answers the President gives, for Daschle there are always ‘a number of questions that still remain’. Actually, the only remaining question is how much longer the Democrats’ most visible spokesman can afford to go on making himself look like a total idiot. What question does he still need answered? ‘What’s the capital of Iraq?’?

I think it's obvious to all now that Senator Daschle's "questions" were not questions at all, but rather a rhetorical device with which he hoped to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt among the people, for his own political advantage.

That he would do such a thing is understandable given the position he is in, but it divides the nation at a time when unity might be important to survival. I think he has since realized that the tactic was hurting his own Party; we haven't heard any more from him about his "questions" since the President spoke.