Moderator: SC Moderators
Samantha --
I think your first post was right on point -- and not at all in the wrong place. The general thread is for all discussions -- and your post directly took up Ash's points -- so much so that he responded to you.
Don't feel bad that he responded to you dismissively. He dismisses everyone. It's his particular idiom.
Beathan
[quote="Beathan":5dtk925z]Don't feel bad that he responded to you dismissively. He dismisses everyone. It's his particular idiom.[/quote:5dtk925z]
This is both a deliberate lie (you know full well that I do not "dismiss everyone") and an unlawful attack on character in a forum. The moderators have been notified.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":19s4bpnu]This is both a deliberate lie (you know full well that I do not "dismiss everyone") and an unlawful attack on character in a forum. The moderators have been notified.[/quote:19s4bpnu]
Do you intend to have a "contempt of court" punishment if you should sit as a judge? If so, what are you thinking would trigger the charge, and what would the punishment be (at a minimum and at a maximum)?
Your great concern for the integrity and independence of our judiciary is, indeed, admirable. Let me assuage your fears by reminding you that additional judges are in the process of being appointed and will deal with this, if need be. So your concerns will be fully addressed, as Ashcroft will clearly not sit in his own case. Thank you indeed for addressing this vital issue.
Ash wrote [quote:3ccn56t0]This is both a deliberate lie (you know full well that I do not "dismiss everyone") and an unlawful attack on character in a forum. The moderators have been notified.[/quote:3ccn56t0]
Great, so now I can't even commiserate with a fellow victim without having the hall monitors called in on me. "Juvenile" doesn't begin to cover it. Samantha seemed demoralized by Ash's "answer" to her post -- and I could sympathize. Things look bleak for reasoned discourse above a third-grade, tattle-tale level for these forums and our judicial project.
Also -- Ash, just because I want to do experiments to find the proper balance, priorities, and parameters for our justice system before settling on its details does not make me an experimenter on your account. My goal, like yours, is to have a working judiciary. If this makes me an organizer, I am an organizer. I just want to have some reason for faith in the elements that comprise the judicial system we want to organize and implement. Thus, I believe that experimentation and implementation are properly stages in an endeavor, and that is dangerous to skip experimentation, or end it prematurely, and move straight into blind implementation. This is a difference in process -- not in goal.
Beathan
Bethan asumptions are dangerous, im not demoralized and i don't consider myself a fellow victum. 
I lurked a long time, thought long and hard about the consquences, who i wanted to become, and what i wanted to acomplish before i steped into the line of fire. 
I also [u:2ks08mk5]knew[/u:2ks08mk5] that Ashcroft whoud huff and puff in defence of his judicary, after all he put 100's of hours into it, and likes to argue! that is why i shifted some of the ideas to the judicary thread.
Please don't consider yourself a victum eather. You are smart articulate and will eventualy pervail if you don't let Ashcroft get your goat. The real victums are those who want a hand in shaping the CDS but who are intimated from posting. Edit Actualy this forum is quite a bit more civil than most. End edit
I've come to beleive that the real strength of a socitey is in the character of the citizens it atracts, forges, and retains.