Yes, you've barely started with the ad hominem attacks... until this post.

What was that you said about a mirror earlier? Was it really over 3 years ago we first clashed here? You do realize now that it was because we're more alike than we are different, right? Including in how we write here, and how "curt" we both tend to become.

That's the kicker. Where do you see me "defending" anything? Have I said "Yay Council for scooping 4 devices!"? Did I say "This was perfectly fine and moral of everyone involved!"? No. I said "The rules were made to allow this, long ago", and I said "I brought this up several times, and everyone dismissed it". I also noted that I was one voice, where many other voices held the other line; including the Nokia rep handing out this "$40K" prize, and 4 other Council (or 6 other nominees, depending on the time frame).

Read what I've written, and show me where I'm "defending" anything. That assumption is coming from your head, because you want someone to blame for this. So bad that you're not even caring if those you're aiming it at are even Council. What is it you seek? Justice, or revenge for some perceived wrong? It's looking more like the latter to me; thus the comment about pitchforks.

What will you do about that? You sit and expect me to throw some magical fairy dust and make this all better, with some mystical power you assume I have because I was elected Council. I have no magic dust nor mystical powers. I have no clear options to correct this. This was months in the making, by those in power well before I had any say in anything at all. And every time I ask what options others may see, I get rhetoric, jive, or silence back, doubly so from you.

Because you're judged by the company you keep, right? Even when it's an elected position? Because you always disagree with every government official, since some of them are corrupt. My association is political. What's your association with those on your side in this thread? Mine is voluntary to a point, yes, but yours is even more so.

I could use this as a reason to leave Council, walk away from it; who would fault me? But what would that accomplish, besides sending the whole works into a death spiral? We could wind up like we were last cycle with one active Council and the rest non-active. You want that?

But when that defense is assumed and not based in reality... then what?

Tell me, do trial lawyers go to jail with their clients when found guilty? Why not? They were defending a criminal! They pointed out problems in the law, and showed where things went wrong, even if they disagree with the end results. They should go to jail too, right? Especially when they're working pro-bono.

Pot/Kettle isn't the right analogy here; it's eye for an eye. You feel wronged and attacked by others, so you in turn wrong and attack others. I think we both know how well that works in small communities. Without considering that someone pointing out the flaws in the process may not be "defending" the process, just because they're doing so calmly and not screaming for heads to roll.

I've learned since we last talked. I learned that screaming doesn't actually cause much to get fixed. Asking questions often does. I've asked one question, consistently, and have yet to get one single answer to it.

You feel wronged? Try walking in my shoes...