[Lnc-business] Hubbub email chain length for 134-member LNC

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

Oh my, I've no idea what you're on about.  Call what bluff?

The number and content of my posts?!  LOL

I've made one post regarding Arvin's actual behavior.  (a reply to and 
agreement with Caryn Ann)

You made a clearly insulting reply to my motion. It was both insulting 
and wrong.  You don't want to apologize or own it?  That's on you.

As for number of posts...are you kidding me? I've been reading the LNC 
archives for a long time, and if you were concerned about the number of 
LNC members posts, that's news to me.

I'll be in Denver, but if you're an example of the welcoming committee, 
I'm not sure I'll look forward to it.

---
Elizabeth Van Horn


On 2018-01-15 01:57, david.demarest at lp.org wrote:
> I'm calling your bluff. Count the number of your postings. Case of pot
> calling the kettle black? And I'll stack the content of my postings up
> against yours anytime. I listen and learn on topics I am not
> knowledgeable on, and focus on those I am passionate about or have a
> direct stake in. I often go days without interjecting. The good news
> is that I have gotten to know you rather quickly, at least via email,
> due to your frequent contributions, and without snide comments on my
> part. I look forward to meeting you in Denver.
> 
> On 2018-01-15 00:36, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
>> What in the world are you talking about?  I haven't done "anti-Arvin
>> diatribes".  I just now posted a reply to Caryn Ann, and emphasized
>> for the first time what I think is wrong with Arvin's behavior. Hell,
>> if anything Caryn Ann has done the anti-Arvin diatribes and Arvin even
>> noted that.
>> 
>> As for "snidely", good, I'm glad you noticed.  I take it you didn't
>> like it much?  Then perhaps you'd do the courtesy of not doing that
>> toward me, which was clearly what you were doing with your reply to my
>> motion.  Don't do it, as it will boomerang back.
>> 
>> 
>> Also, my suggestion was actually 50 people, one per state. I just
>> typoed it.  *laughing*
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
>> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>> 
>> On 2018-01-15 01:21, david.demarest at lp.org wrote:
>>> Actually, Elizabeth, the current bylaws committee approved proposal
>>> provides for 130 state representatives and an expanded executive
>>> committee of 11. The expanded number of At Large representatives from
>>> 5 to 7 would be selected not by convention delegates but by the LNC. 
>>> I
>>> am part of the minority that opposed the proposed change. I am in
>>> favor of better representation for states via established guidelines
>>> for regional reps and alternates that Caryn Ann and I have lobbied
>>> for.
>>> 
>>> Thank you for suggesting some logistical considerations, specifically
>>> posting rules, the likes of which were notably glossed over by the
>>> approving committee majority. In practice, however, posting rules may
>>> cause more problems than they would solve. Your approach in the email
>>> below of voluntary ostracism would probably be more effective.
>>> However, I take it your anti-Arvin diatribes and other frequent
>>> contributions evidently do not count as ramblings that you snidely
>>> referenced.
>>> 
>>> My concern is the logistics of face-to-face meetings for such a large
>>> LNC that would likely diminish face-to-face meetings to once a year
>>> with the obvious result of more concentration in the executive
>>> committee and less representation of states. Electronic meetings 
>>> would
>>> be totally impossible.
>>> 
>>> I believe that the logistical difficulties of a large LNC would
>>> inevitably result in more concentration of power in the executive
>>> committee and reduced representation of states not to mention the 
>>> fact
>>> that the election of expanded number of 7 At Large representatives
>>> would be taken away from the convention delegates to be replaced by
>>> their election by the LNC (and from the LNC?). That is a 
>>> concentration
>>> of power move if I ever saw one. I heard what you said about state
>>> representation but is disenfranchisement of convention delegates and
>>> states what you really want?
>>> 
>>> Fortunately, this impractical proposal as it currently stands is
>>> unlikely to pass muster with convention delegates but we shall see.
>>> The current system is admittedly not perfect but it works reasonably
>>> well logistically and improvements are possible without changing the
>>> size. The proposed expansion appears to me to be a solution looking
>>> for a problem.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>> 
>>> On 2018-01-14 23:25, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
>>>> I think expanding to one representative per state, for a total of 
>>>> 100
>>>> members, would be a plus.  (I know that's not what the bylaws people
>>>> want.)
>>>> 
>>>> Because, it would be easier to get feedback from the members.  The
>>>> actual people we represent.
>>>> 
>>>> Then some posting rules could be in place, such as no burdening the
>>>> rest of the LNC with personal rambles and dreams.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 2018-01-15 00:17, david.demarest at lp.org wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Can you imagine the length of this bruhaha email chain if the 
>>>>> bylaws
>>>>> committee proposal to expand the the LNC to 134 members was already 
>>>>> in
>>>>> place. It boggles the imagination.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business