I'd like to say here that what I think was unfortunately taken as passive-aggressive was simply my honesty. Even before this situation I've always supported Mike's obvious authority here, and in the very thread you and Bean discuss I consider 'Mike decided' an instant end to the discussion (as in any other discussion regarding the running of the board). I can see how in the aftermath my posting could have been taken the wrong way - especially by Mike, who has no time for people who question his ownership of the board - but my posts at that time were concerned with what happened and why, and now that it's in the open (and in the past) there's certainly no point moaning about any of it.RedImperator wrote:There's nothing in Stark's post about "if you guys enforce the rules, I'm going to quit the Senate". Nothing, not in that thread, not anywhere else. Stark did start passively-aggressively complaining about what he perceived to be overzealous rules enforcement, in the House of Commons, and Mike did slap him down for that, but that has nothing to do with the statement you and others have seized upon as evidence that Stark was laying down ultimatums.
Sorry I haven't been able to post in this discussion earlier; my girlfriend and I are moving in together, it's Melbourne Cup week, and there's no net connection here at the moment. The phone-posting was enough for quick posts, but doesn't cut it for anything important.