The Neutral Manifesto

[Jujuwalker]

Seems to me that Yarko and JuJu are trying to set a government on all Neutrals and force the NLF to find a new home. Glad I live in Borealis and not Newland!

You know what's funny? I disagreed on previous versions of the document myself, behind closed doors. I though the last version, the one we released, was indeed one of the best of the document.

I like how i'm being set as a convenient scapegoat while when you look at my council involvement, i've actually been working on getting equipment for the militia, and helping out others for the council. "Here's Juju, he's the one that steals troxy children and eats them at night! FLAME! KILL! SCAPEGOAT!"

Like I said to Gorge on an exchange that should have never aired on ch42, if the nanolibfront would stop being so against EVERYTHING and to start participating in the processes, things would be excellent. I was glad to have Lordstage on the council because I viewed it in a very positive manner and a sign of openness from the nanolibfront. Guess once again it's the black joker versus the world, isn't it?

Before you diss on Yarko, or me, try being in our shoes for a minute, and try undergoing an assignment like Yarko tried. It's not easy, and it's so much easier to diss something and destroy it, then trying to build something yourself.

[Yarko]

The Newland City Council is the government of Newland city, not of all neutrals. This being the case their concern should be the development and governance of their fair city, not the concerns of all neutrals. The manifesto was presented as an officially announced meeting with the public of the NLCC. Most of the council members were present. The mayor was present. The mayor -approved- of the manifesto in public. This is a political act by NLC, not one by concerned neutrals.

If Yarko had drafted this and spoke among the other neutral guild leaders that inhabit the other cities and presented it to the neutral public as a leader in his organization I would not have this problem, and I imagine nor would many others.

Actually, to present the manifesto to the neutral leaders and public is what the meeting was for and is why it is published here on the public gridfeed. Whether we in the council approve it or not doesn’t matter, it is still up to the neutrals in general to accept or not. I also don’t understand why you try to open up a division between the council and neutrals. As if the Newland City Council wouldn’t be concerned neutrals…

Of course the development and governance of Newland are our concern, but in doing so, in safeguarding our city, it is inevitable to interact with the factions. And the factions look on us as a whole, as neutrals, and not as citizens from Newland, Borealis or Last Ditch. Hence, it is also inevitable that general neutral issues are discussed. What difference does it make if I present something as a council member or as a leader in my organization? I still do it as a neutral.

One thing to also consider is that this discussion has been predominately between myself, Yarko, Sir Negs, and Nyadach with some commentary and suggestions from the 'peanut gallery'. Its hardly being debated by all neutrals right now.

Yes, and that is a shame. People seem more concerned about Miiir shops then about here future. A sad situation, I hope people will get more involved once the Borealis council is set up.

"Neutrals maintain personal attitudes, rather than factional attitudes, towards world events. Thus, their actions should be understood in this context."

If I understand this right, you mean that all actions by neutrals have to be seen as individual actions and not necessarily represent the attitude of other neutrals. In other words: there is no unity amongst neutrals whatsoever and that is how the factions should see us.

This would mean that everyone can do as they please, there is no right or wrong. It also means that there is no faction, at most some groups or individuals who share the same ideas.

This comes close to a form of anarchism, an anti-authoritarian society, based on individual self-determination and personal involvement. If this is the case, councils aren’t necessary and even useless, since the opinions of a council will never be shared by the general population. It also would make it impossible to ever negotiate with the factions, since there never can be conformity or an agreement. Needless to say a manifesto of any kind would be worthless.

There is of course the problem of the factions always seeing us as a whole. The actions of one neutral will always affect the others. If one neutral decides that he is at war with a faction, the rest of us better prepare their weapons too. If one neutral welcomes the Sentinels to cause some amok in Newland, well, what will the others do? Ignore the fact or fight them and maybe even each other?

It seems to me that such a statement is the shortest road to self destruction...

[XzSwiftcurse]

*raises a brow*
Please tell me Mr. Chaupin...when was it ever stated by the NLF that we support these murders?
If you spit out accusations like these, please back them up with facts.
It is so typical and so easy to put the NLF into a category isn't it? But it is something else to back up these accusations with facts isn't it?
So please Mr. Chaupin get back behind your desk and do some research before you point fingers

well, let me see. perhaps when you started to act in defence for that legionaire who showed up at the elections? almost everyone immediatly knew she was a legionaire, but only you say "we support mage". Did you have no idea who that woman was? The "superior breed" of rubi-ka, or whatever you tend to call you're selfs, didn't saw that she was a Legionaire?
Unless you woke up and accidently placed a chickenbrain implant in you're head, we would believe you.

[Nuser_]

well, let me see. perhaps when you started to act in defence for that legionaire who showed up at the elections? almost everyone immediatly knew she was a legionaire, but only you say "we support mage". Did you have no idea who that woman was? The "superior breed" of rubi-ka, or whatever you tend to call you're selfs, didn't saw that she was a Legionaire?
Unless you woke up and accidently placed a chickenbrain implant in you're head, we would believe you.

So that means that all mages in a black robe, a hood and a stick is a legionaire? Whether or not she was a legionaire is not my point. What gets to me is that so many people like to recklessly point fingers at mages without having any proof of their accusations.
Well Yarko had "proof" which was static in everyones com-unit....excuse me, but that happens all the time so that is no legimate proof.
So I did not act in defence for a legionaire. I acted in defense of a mage who became a target of peoples accusations....

[XzSwiftcurse]

then tell me, suppose she was indeed a Legionaire? how would you have reacted then?

[Yarko]

This is not a discussion about nanomages and Legionaries, there are plenty of places where you can do that.

Back to the topic please.

[XzSwiftcurse]

you are right Mr. Yarko, forgive me.

[Berael]

I also don’t understand why you try to open up a division between the council and neutrals. As if the Newland City Council wouldn’t be concerned neutrals…

I'm glad the council is concerned with neutrals as their city is a neutral city, but the presentation of the manifesto makes it seem as though Newland has the authority to proclaim the code of ideals and morals for all neutrals. If this was the 'Newland manifesto' that the NLCC used to guide their decisions it would be different, and it would also be different it was done personally by Yarko as a concerned neutral. With many people saying that Newland is trying to take over all neutrals' or other such non-sense I don't think I’m out of line making that observation.

In other words: there is no unity amongst neutrals whatsoever and that is how the factions should see us.

Your argument here consists of a long logical fallacy known as a slippery slope. In which you take a set of events and describe how they will inevitably lead to a certain end without deviation. This is obviously not true. I'll take the time to explain my position though.

When I say that neutral attitudes are personal and independent I am saying just that, i'm not asking any leap of faith or logic. Since the only unity I have found in neutrals at the grass roots level of just talking to people is in the claim to the name of neutrality and the ties between neutral people and neutral organizations that are personally formed, it would make sense to say that we act on an individual level.

All society is based on personal involvement, there is no invisible hand, there is no unseen force. The force that does exist to curtail the actions of others is the people who say 'no'. This has been the governing force of the majority of acting neutrals sitting around in Borealis for a long time. There are certain unsaid sets of rules that are involved with interaction in the community, if you violate those rules you either get ignored, not helped, or degraded in public. If you follow those rules you are liked, aided, and consulted with. Those rules were not made by a council or fashioned by a law making body; they evolved over the course of Neutal history on Rubi-Ka. They all come from people saying "no, I don't like that, and I’m not going to help you if you continue to do that, I might even oppose you." This obsersation is just from my interactions in Borealis, in Newland these rules may be different, or possibly not exist.

City councils are a different matter as well since they govern over the city and concerns of the city, in a similar fashion to guild and organization membership. What might not be accepted by a city or guild might be accepted by the wider ground level neutral population. In the case of a city, they have the power to force people to behave the way they wish them to behave by denying them services and liberty within the city, guilds may simply deny membership.

The actions of the one can be seen both ways: in that they act as a neutral and they act as an individual. If my proposed edit of the manifesto is taken into account, if X random neutral goes up and whacks some OT towers then it would be seen as an act of their own volition or an act of their guild. The NLCC could not be held accountable nor could the vast neutral population, because we are not responsible for the actions of the individual.

My edit is inclusive of all who claim neutrality, but it leaves them to suffer the consiquences of their own actions.

[Yarko]

I'm glad the council is concerned with neutrals as their city is a neutral city, but the presentation of the manifesto makes it seem as though Newland has the authority to proclaim the code of ideals and morals for all neutrals. If this was the 'Newland manifesto' that the NLCC used to guide their decisions it would be different, and it would also be different it was done personally by Yarko as a concerned neutral. With many people saying that Newland is trying to take over all neutrals' or other such non-sense I don't think I’m out of line making that observation.

Well, in that casy many people don't even take the effort to read was has been written. Since I've answered this about a dozen times now, I'm no longer going to spend any time on this issue.

Since the only unity I have found in neutrals at the grass roots level of just talking to people is in the claim to the name of neutrality and the ties between neutral people and neutral organizations that are personally formed, it would make sense to say that we act on an individual level.

Things can change.

All society is based on personal involvement, there is no invisible hand, there is no unseen force.

There is. In most societies there is some kind of a government who set out the boundaries between which people can act.

The force that does exist to curtail the actions of others is the people who say 'no'. This has been the governing force of the majority of acting neutrals sitting around in Borealis for a long time. There are certain unsaid sets of rules that are involved with interaction in the community, if you violate those rules you either get ignored, not helped, or degraded in public. If you follow those rules you are liked, aided, and consulted with. Those rules were not made by a council or fashioned by a law making body; they evolved over the course of Neutal history on Rubi-Ka. They all come from people saying "no, I don't like that, and I’m not going to help you if you continue to do that, I might even oppose you."

This may have been true in the past. However, more and more newcomers just don’t care about these “rules” and if you really interact with people you can’t deny a certain loss of values. What is worse is that many of the older organizations, instead of opposing them, are dragged with them in this downward spiral.

This obsersation is just from my interactions in Borealis, in Newland these rules may be different, or possibly not exist.

Why would there be any difference between Newland and Borealis?

The actions of the one can be seen both ways: in that they act as a neutral and they act as an individual. If my proposed edit of the manifesto is taken into account, if X random neutral goes up and whacks some OT towers then it would be seen as an act of their own volition or an act of their guild. The NLCC could not be held accountable nor could the vast neutral population, because we are not responsible for the actions of the individual.

My edit is inclusive of all who claim neutrality, but it leaves them to suffer the consiquences of their own actions.

Well, this is something I absolutely don’t agree with. Let me demonstrate this with a couple of examples:

From: The Hypocrisy of Neutrality Aug 19th, 2003

“Neutrals have long declared themselves uninvolved in the conflict between the glorious Omni-Tek Corporation and the evil rebel Clans. However, there is a hypocrisy that exists -- a lie lived by these so-called neutrals. I would venture so far as to accuse these neutrals of being on the same level as the Clan terrorists.”

“Interesting. A neutral organization that demonstrates aggression by clearing an existing mining operation with military force, and replacing it with their own. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? These neutrals, who claim to be uninvolved with the planetary conflict, are in fact very much involved. They thrust themselves into the middle of the conflict with their Clan-like ideologies, and they fight against Corporate forces to secure their own secret stash of notum.“

“It is a revolting situation, and it must be dealt with appropriately. Citizens of Omni-Tek, soldiers of the superior corporate military: Do not be hesitant to strike against neutrals. In the past, they have shown their tendency to support the terrorists, and like the Clans they seek to dismantle the corporation for their own benefit. Neutrals are your enemy, just as are the Clans.”

Statement made by Phillip Ross

"As for the neutral citizens of Rubi-Ka, until now, we have been happy to leave them alone, as per their wishes. This we can no longer afford to do. The ICC, and Omni-Tek, still considers the neutral population of Rubi-Ka to be employees of the Corporation, and it is time we start reaffirming that commitment."

Statements made by High Commander Fisk

"I have absolutely no tolerance for people who lack the guts to have an opinion, and stand by it. It’s cowardly, weak, and completely dishonourable. I loathe the neutral, even more so than the Omnis. At least they believe in something."

"Indifference is a dangerous cancer that has to be cut away as early as possible, without question, and without lack of resolve. How can you ever hope to trust someone with two coats on?"

"NOTHING will ever dissuade me. Neutrals should be wiped off the planet."

From: An Interview with Simon Silverstone Feb 18th, 2004

"My views on the neutrals are somewhat the same as most of my men. They deny taking a side, and refuse to do anything to protect our planet, and now you have seen how they replaced Loren Warr's mercenaries. I thought they were trying to stay neutral, how can they stay neutral by taking millions of credits from Phillip Ross to fund their own guards who will be trained by Omni-Tek officers? Well, if they manage to pull such a thing off then I will take back my words about them being weak. But I doubt it, as Loren Warr is of Omni stock. I guess time will tell."

You see any of these speak of Wolf Brigade or IR or TU or EO or whatever neutral organization or individual? You can state in manifestos as much as you want that only individuals or organizations are responsible for their actions, for the factions this will never make any difference, they will always speak about neutrals. This is logical. You can’t honestly expect the factions to keep account of the opinions or deeds of all neutral individuals or organizations.

Hence, if you don't speak with one voice on even the most basic of things, you’ll never get anywhere.

[Berael]

I'm not speaking on the basis of what people should do, i'm working on the basis of what people do right now in the community. Yes, things can change, but i'm not concerned with what could be, i'm concerned with the manifesto's stated purpose which is to define what neutrals believe and where they lay their loyalty. So far article two makes the manifesto exclusive. It essentialy requires use to be labeled 'neutral' and 'unaffiliated' because it excludes people and you have to bother to explain to people why the people who are tagged as neutral are not -really- neutral, they are 'fake' neutrals. Mine does not do that, my version of article two includes everybody who claims they are neutral and says that they only have as much support as the people who stand with them. Thus while the NLF, The Dust Brigade, and The Legionares are tagged as neutral their actions can be seen as being their own. In fact, they are, because they have very visible actions that outrage lots of people, including other neutrals.

On Froobies:
Since the ICC withdrew its immigration fees we have had a influx of people with varying degrees of respect for the system in place, this is true. The system still works though, and I hear that even many of the froobies are establishing their own systems as well since they were denied help so often from the ones set up by the neutral legacy guilds (or the 'Old Guard' if you will). The wolves and I have turned away countless rude and distasteful people, and helped and included those who were polite and wanted to learn. In time if the immigrants do not learn how to work with other they will either wither and leave or gain their strength on the long hard road alone.

On Government control:
A law against something never stopped that thing from happening if it was desired. Even in the light of trying to press that charge with force. Nearly nobody violates taboos though, and if they do they are shuned and alienated. The current system of neutral self governance is not a system of laws, it is a system of cultural rules for acting, also a system of taboos, something that is firmly written inside a person and enforced by the people they love and their own conciouss. With this, there are most likely many different threads of cooperation in the neutral community, each with their own little variation of the rules. This is the very reason I draw a difference betwen borealis and newland is because I don't live in newland, I don't know what the neutrals there expect of each other. It may be different and it may be the same as borealis, I just don't know.

On neutral hypocrisy:
This is a bunch of bullmew. The ICC declaired that Omni-Tek no longer has a monopoly on notum extraction and that it is open to anybody within areas designated by the ICC. This doesn't just mean the Clans and OT, it means everybody. In this light the conflict between the Clans and OT seems juvinile because anybody worth their salt can drop ship on the planet and start mining assuming they have the firepower to keep their plot. If that is true it could be said that there is not just two sides(The Authority and the Rebellion), but thousands, because other companys certainly want in on the notum rush. They just have to -sell- to Omni-Tek for distribution. Neutral mining cannot be seen as a sided act because Omni-Tech is no longer legaly the sole controler of notum mining.

On Ross:
Don't know, haven't seen it yet, nor have I heard any offical word posted by the ICC beyond that statement as a cattle call for us all to 'get back to our desks'. If you have more information about this it would be appriciated.

On Fisk and Silverstone:
They are obviously ignorant of what is going on in neutral cities if they see us and as just undecided and affraid of making choices. Now if you are demanding of the average neutral to be more informed and read about what is going on instead of making decisions on hear-say and impressions of others, please kindly tell that to these two as well.

Yarko, you said before that just being neutral in the conflict between the Clans and OT will not save us. Only working together and finding common ground will save us if they decide to turn their guns to our direction in erhnest. In this regard I would rather include all those people who would wish to be included in the neutral community and work to include them in the discussions so that new ideas and directions can come to our betterment. Our diversity of thought and actions is one of our greatest strengths in the neutral community. If we work to exclude that with the manifesto as it is now, then we are locked into only a small way of doing things, a limited amout of ideas and actions. When those are exhausted where will we be then?

[Yarko]

Ber, answer me this one question: who would be excluded by the fact that we should be impartial and not interfere in the war?

[Berael]

Me for one.

The rest of the Wolves for another.

Possibly you

If anybody has ever used the mission boards as a neutral you get a grab bag of what ever is offered. Sometimes i've gotten missions by clanners to kill omnis, vice-versa, or people who want their own side killed. Even occasionaly a side who wants neutrals killed.

Anybody who has ever helped out in the investigation of the Biomare facility in longest road, if they have a collar of amplifacation then they greatly aided a side there.

If the Shadowlands conflict is an extension of the RK conflict then anybody who has a garden key or sanctuary key has participated in the conflict.

If you have any of the sided shoulderpads from ... what are their names, alex and dogda?... then you have helped a side.

Any of us who run the outzones with the OT raid groups have participated in aiding the betterment of those individuals over the clan group. Even though the clan group will not accept us, we could still avoid the situation all together or organize our own runs.

For that matter, any of us who have stood beside Omni-Tek in Pandemonium or fighting to bring down the Tarasque, have helped those OT personel become better equiped in their fight against the Clans even if they were there just for them selves.

If these things do not constitute involvement in the war in some fashion then i'm not sure I understand what you mean by non-involvement. I do impartial well though.

[Yarko]

Does this mean that the impartial part doesn’t cause any problems? Because if so, it’s only the participation part that needs clarification.

Personally, I don’t feel that any of the cases you mention necessarily is in conflict with the manifesto. Most, if not all neutrals, support one side on one occasion and the other on the next, which would still make them impartial. Only if they persistently support one side would they be in trouble.

Anyway, let’s see what we can do. How about this:

2. Neutrals will retain full political and military independence and remain free at all times to decide on whatever measures they deem necessary. In general, neutrals will maintain an impartial attitude towards Omni-Tek and the Clans.

[Jujuwalker]

Now before we get too much into this, you have to separate gameplay stuff with political issues. Doing a terminal mission where you go and punk so "clan/omni" guy and calling that an act of partiality in the conflict is complete and utter bollocks.

It's the same with the notum waring, the exact same thing with raids, bots, yaddi yaddi yadda. This is a game we're playing. It's bulls!@#$ to ask people not to play a game just because some very misguided people think some gameplay issue actually constitutes an political act.

Back on track people.

[Yarko]

Game? What game?

[Berael]

OOC Digression

I don't seperate game system issues with game setting issues when I can help it. Many of the elements do converge and make sense if you just thinking about them for a little bit. In fact it rather ticks me off when people -ignore- the system and claim to have some sort of superior ability for their character when they are at level 50 and i'm working my way to 'enlightenment' at level 217.

Why the mew shouldn't there be raid groups? The unicorns opened the outzones in the first place so they could get people to go fight the aliens! Why shouldn't missions considered to be IC behavior? They are obviously asking you to do things that are of importance to the setting: repair damaged equipment, stop the mutants, bring back lost items, locate stolen data, the list goes on.

Even the Skill and IP system makes sense since you have a little computer interface called a NCU fused to your brain that allows you to interact with computers. If people can upload skill programs to their brains to make themselves smarter, why wouldn't it make sense?

Notum warring -is- a declaired part of the setting, its the rext rubi-ka civil war. Go read the RK timeline old timer.

Anyway before I get too far into this i'll start a topic else where to discuss System and Setting convergence and how to interperate game system elements as game setting elements.

This concludes my OOC Digression

[Berael]

I don't like the wording of 'Neutrals will...' makes it sound like an order or command to me. If you phrase it such as 'Neutrals retain full political and military independence...' it sounds like it is something that we already do, which seem to be more in the spirit of the manifesto.

If you compare this version side by side with the first they share many similarities, maybe too many to say they are really seperate articles.

If we say the the first two articles define neutrals, I would say that looking at the originals that the first article define what neutrals believe and the second what neutrals do, or possibly what the role of neutrals are on RK).

So here is another possible wording:

1. Neutrals are an independent entity, without political or ideological affiliation with either the Omni-Tek Corporation or the Clans, because of this they hold themselves to be seperate from this conflict or impartial to it.
2. Neutrality contains a wide diversity of thoughts and ideals, so any single neutral only ever act on their own power and authority, never on behalf of neutrality as a whole.

I'm not sure I like the wording of the second, its not as concise as I would like. I mean it to convey that since there are so many different ideas of what it means to be neutral that any neutral can only speak for themselves or their authority but never for neutrality as a whole. So I could speak for Wolf Brigade and Yarko for Newland or possibly IR, but not for all neutral as a whole.

[Psikie]

I cant believe I've missed all this banter~ But now that i know its here... first:

Newland City was granted neutral status by the first Council of Truth in an addendum to the Tir accord. The Tir accord however was annulled. “Neutrals should be wiped off the planet” and “if I had the resources available, both Newland City and Borealis would be blown to thousands of pieces in order to eradicate this breeding ground for thoughtless indifferent drones they have created.” Does this ring a bell?

Yarko you, I, and Nya are all very very old school, I know all about the notum wars and before. Remember Sumokan (EO) and myself (WB) were the ONLY ones who supported bringing the mercs to NLC when the clans were busting our chops daily instead of fighting omnis like they should have been!

Lets look at neutrality, by definition it means something totally different than the reality we are faced with. You guys have been spouting the defined and assumed definition of neutrals.

~In reality neutrals are any and everyone who doesn't work for OT or fight to dethrone OT as their agenda.~

So if you just take that statement to heart you won't have to wonder about neutrals ever again. Sure there are plenty of personal goals involved. Some neutrals dislike one side or the other, that doesnt mean they support the side the dislike the least. It just means they dislike one side enough to do something about how they feel.
For example the notum wars left an EXTREMELY bad taste in my mouth for clanners, but that doesnt mean I love Omni. I will work with either side if it suits my current goal.
I have no problem with merceneries selling themselves to either or both sides. If the clans are consistantly paying more for your services... you dance with them. Same goes if its OT. If you go back and forth.. so be it, that's why you are not aligned with either faction. Can you be allied.. sure, thats about one of the best advantages to being "neutral". You can ally with who ever you want and change your mind when ever you want. To sum up all this rambling...

Neutrality on Rubi-Ka can be sumed up like this:

Neutral is like a woman's perogative, the ability to say or do what you want, and then change your mind if that doesn't suit you~

[Yarko]

Hi Psilkie, about time someone besides Berael shows up to give some opposotion

Yes, I know: say or do whatever you want and change your mind if it doesn't suit you sums up pretty well how neutrals are and how the factions see us. The problem as I see it, is that this is also what the factions hold against us. As such, neutrals aren’t considered trustworthy and even a risk, which all too often results in unnecessary enmity.

Some of the things I hope the manifesto might achieve are:

1. get the ICC to recognize neutrals and neutral cities
2. make sure that neutral cities are left undisturbed during conflicts between Omni-Tek and the Clans
3. improve the relations with the factions and if possible normalize situations like the one in Tir

We can’t do this by saying what is already known. Yes, there is something like a defined and an assumed definition of neutrals and neutrality. The question is, can these somehow be united and still give a strong enough signal?

If you say like Ber: “Neutrality contains a wide diversity of thoughts and ideals, so any single neutral only ever act on their own power and authority, never on behalf of neutrality as a whole” you really are saying that we, as a people, take no responsibility for our actions whatsoever. As such, councils, manifests and negotiations are useless, since you can’t ever pretend to represent anyone but yourself…

[Berael]

Then give me a better wording yarko. X random immigrant noobie isn't speaking for anybody but themselves. I on the other hand can speak for Wolf Brigade. You can speak for newland, and possibly IR.

Toog can speak for Newland.
Pyromanche can speak for The Union.
Nuser can speak for the NLF.
Zaii can speak for the Void.
Rumma can speak for Divine Retribution.

The list goes on and on, but all of those people have it within their power and authority to speak for a greater whole of people, but not all of neutrality. Its absurd to say that somebody can negociate with -all of neutrality-. Its absurd because of this deversity, but people can negociate with larger organizations of people like organizations and cities. We do not have a Ross, we do not have a Raddiman, nor do we have a formal government or unifying body. Nobody can speak for all of neutrality.

Just because we are not unified doesn't mean we can't work together, as we have many times before, there just needs to be a cause that we all (or most of us) agree on and want to pursue.

If the manifesto was made with the intention of presenting neutrals as a unified body, it is bound to fail. Its bound to fail because we all have different ideas about what should be done, and many of us are more willing to say "forget you" then spend the time to work out our differences in our view points.

On the other hand if it presents us as we are maybe more people will understand how we are and how we operate, because if people like fisk and silverstone think we don't have opinians and don't care about anything they they obviously -do not- know us and what we do.