NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Member State Taxation Ban
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice Strength: Significant
Description: WHERAS We believe the wording of Resolution 4 (UN Taxation Ban) to be imprecise and incomplete in keeping with the original spirit of the resolution;
THEREFORE in keeping with this original intent and to prevent creation of an unchecked UN entity with earnings and monetary power beyond any individual member nation;
BE IT RESOLVED that the United Nations may not collect taxes, directly and/or indirectly, from any member nation and/or their citizens.

How can you presume to say that the intended spirit of the resolution contradicts its wording when you weren't even around to see it passed? I submit that the wording doesn't clash with what the author intended it to mean, rather it clashes with what you want it to mean. After all, if the author had wanted to prevent taxation from governments, s/he would have written "The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes and/or dues from any member state's government". Instead, s/he quite specifically wrote "not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state".

I think its a solid proposal. I'd save UN Nations a lot of money, and make an incentive to be a better nation.

How can you presume to say that the intended spirit of the resolution contradicts its wording when you weren't even around to see it passed? I submit that the wording doesn't clash with what the author intended it to mean, rather it clashes with what you want it to mean. After all, if the author had wanted to prevent taxation from governments, s/he would have written "The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes and/or dues from any member state's government". Instead, s/he quite specifically wrote "not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state".

Ah, so then it remains your opinion that all proposals presented were and remain always written absolutely clear, with full sense of all facets of meaning present for all to clearly ascertain? Or perhaps it is more the case that not all proposals are stated in full clarity, but rather some are presented in a ... less then perfect manner?

We of course await your response.

UN Member State Taxation BanUh-oh.A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.Double uh-oh.Category: Social Justice
Strength: SignificantOne big bag of uh-oh.Description: WHERAS We believe the wording of Resolution 4 (UN Taxation Ban) to be imprecise and incomplete in keeping with the original spirit of the resolution;The hell it is.The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.Now, I don't know about the rest of us, but it looks to me like that resolution was supposed to prevent the U.N. becoming the " OMG EVIL 1 WORLDORZ " so many people fear us to be or become. We cannot directly tax the citizens by walking up to member-state citizenry and saying " Right, cough it up bitch ! " for our own gain. And considering its only one bloody line of text, I don't know how more clear it could be.THEREFORE in keeping with this original intent and to prevent creation of an unchecked UN entity with earnings and monetary power beyond any individual member nation;Because we all know this U.N. is be default destined to be evil.BE IT RESOLVED that the United Nations may not collect taxes, directly and/or indirectly, from any member nation and/or their citizens.No. Because I think this is a very, very, cheap shot ...

We must agree to disagree then. Though if one allows there to be loopholes, then they will be exploited, and the UN shall "indirectly" gain what it did not "directly" gain.

The end becomes the same. And once opened, the can of worms shall extend and expand ad nauseum, allowing for (indirect) tax after (indirect) tax after (indirect) tax.

It really does not matter if your funds are taken directly or indirectly - they are still taken, you are still taxed.

My personal gripe aside, to allow the UN to have full control over what would be the largest economy anywhere is to make a huge error, for with such power comes equal corruption. And I have been too long on this Earth to not know how easily corruption comes.

So, do as you will. Believe as you will. Time shall display which is the correct view. It is our position to pre-empt such events as shall make our position known as the "should have been"s.

My personal gripe aside, to allow the UN to have full control over what would be the largest economy anywhere is to make a huge error.
Again, you're wrong. This is nothing but sour grapes. If you even bothered to read the draft version of the other, much more reasonable proposal, you would see a mandated dues cap of .005%. That's one twenty-thousandth of the income from around 33,000 member nations.

Given a standard statisitical distribution of smaller, medium, and large nations joining the UN, this makes the UN budget roughly equivalent to a middling-largish nation somewhere in the two-billions. This with a minimum of that same number, 33,000+ of potentially active government overseers/ambassadors to keep it in check.

You didn't do the math. You went for the cheap shot instead.

Again, you're wrong. This is nothing but sour grapes. If you even bothered to read the draft version of the other, much more reasonable proposal, you would see a mandated dues cap of .005%. That's one twenty-thousandth of the income from around 33,000 member nations.

Given a standard statisitical distribution of smaller, medium, and large nations joining the UN, this makes the UN budget roughly equivalent to a middling-largish nation somewhere in the two-billions. This with a minimum of that same number, 33,000+ of potentially active government overseers/ambassadors to keep it in check.

You didn't do the math. You went for the cheap shot instead.


I did the math - a tax is a tax is a tax. The larger the UN, the larger the sum becomes - and there is nothing preventing more taxes on different "needful things" later.

Again, quite simply, we believe this to be illegal because of our economy. We do not support the exploiting of a loophole, and we do not support the creation of an unchecked bureacracy, particularly one which when let loose has the potential to take over and swallow greater and greater parts of the economy of it's members.

There is no "never again" clause - something which prevents further "fundings" by the same logic - ergo the potential is beyond belief.

Regardless of the ideals behind, the UN should never be given the opportunity to tax.

We must agree to disagree then. Though if one allows there to be loopholes,There are no freeking loop-holes, thats the point.then they will be exploited,No loop-holes, none.and the UN shall "indirectly" gain what it did not "directly" gain.That is above and beyond any possible logical point.The end becomes the same.The start becomes different, the left is the right, and the whole world starts rotating in the opposite direction. Now thats been done, can wwe get past the rhetoric ?And once opened, the can of worms shall extend and expand ad nauseum,Leaving worms and rhetoric rotting all across the floor.allowing for (indirect) tax after (indirect) tax after (indirect) tax.No, no and no. It really does not matter if your funds are taken directly or indirectly - they are still taken, you are still taxed.So, like so many arguments before us, we see once again " generic thing IS BAAAD ! " My personal gripe aside,Oh no, cause then we'd have nothing to " debate ".to allow the UN to have full control over what would be the largest economy anywhere is to make a huge error,It would NOT be a bloody economy, its a tax to provide the goods and service you all expect to just fly ou of thin air. It is an attempt to give reality to the situation and provide a pre-text for the creation of fresh material to provide to expand the horizons of the U.N. ! Or something along those lines ...for with such power comes equal corruption.Yes, uyes, and the U.N. is inherently evil, we know, we know.And I have been too long on this Earth to not know how easily corruption comes.Thats very nice dear. Does it sting ?So, do as you will.Why thank-you ...Believe as you will.Certainly do !Time shall display which is the correct view.Oh, pretty rhetoric indicating we will be proven wrongIt is our position to pre-empt such events as shall make our position known as the "should have been"s.Should have been tipped. Mainly because this proposal,

Smells faintly of cabbage.

Ah, so then it remains your opinion that all proposals presented were and remain always written absolutely clear, with full sense of all facets of meaning present for all to clearly ascertain? Or perhaps it is more the case that not all proposals are stated in full clarity, but rather some are presented in a ... less then perfect manner?

We of course await your response.

I never said that all proposals are clear (in fact I have unsuccessfully campaigned against more than one poorly written, unclear proposal). I merely said that this one is clear. If the author writes "no direct tax on citizens", it is because he wants there to be no direct taxation from citizens. It is ridiculous to state that they actually meant no taxation at all.

Actually, he has proposed an amendment to a prior resolution, as well as a reinterpetation. And also he put it into the wrong UN category ... this repeal is being considered a "Social Justice" category. In other words, it will "increase" your tax rate "Significantly". :)

I'd consider this proposal right up there with the quality of the 40 Hour Work Week and the Legalize Prostitution resolutions. Pretty damn stupid to think the UN would impose those ideas or do away with its own dues.

It is obvious that its author doesn't know squat about the NS UN.

Here is the text, see the amendment for yourself.


WHERAS We belive the wording of Resolution 4 (UN Taxation Ban) to be imprecise and incomplete in keeping with the original spirit of the resolution;
THEREFORE in keeping with this original intent and to prevent creation of an unchecked UN entity with earnings and monetary power beyond any individual member nation;
BE IT RESOLVED that the United Nations may not collect taxes, directly and/or indirectly, from any member nation and/or their citizens.

I'm just hoping that once this reaches the floor that we can continue to amend prior resolutions.

The cat's out of the bag folks! :)

Actually, he has proposed an amendment to a prior resolution, as well as a reinterpetation. And also he put it into the wrong UN category ... this repeal is being considered a "Social Justice" category. In other words, it will "increase" your tax rate "Significantly". :)

I'd consider this proposal right up there with the quality of the 40 Hour Work Week and the Legalize Prostitution resolutions. Pretty damn stupid to think the UN would impose those ideas or do away with its own dues.

It is obvious that its author doesn't know squat about the NS UN.

Here is the text, see the amendment for yourself.

Quote:
WHERAS We belive the wording of Resolution 4 (UN Taxation Ban) to be imprecise and incomplete in keeping with the original spirit of the resolution;
THEREFORE in keeping with this original intent and to prevent creation of an unchecked UN entity with earnings and monetary power beyond any individual member nation;
BE IT RESOLVED that the United Nations may not collect taxes, directly and/or indirectly, from any member nation and/or their citizens.


I'm just hoping that once this reaches the floor that we can continue to amend prior resolutions.

The cat's out of the bag folks! :)


OOC The thing that most worries me about you is your repeated dependance on personal attacks. This is a game, Mik. Stick to the issue at hand - a repeated and apparently necessary tendency to "kill the messenger" sends a message that your position is so weak, you must entirely avoid the message to be able to "score any points".

It is well stated, the measure of a man is how he treats those he gains nothing by being nice towards. And a modicum of civility would most certainly do you well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
We must agree to disagree then. Though if one allows there to be loopholes,

There are no freeking loop-holes, thats the point.

Sorry, but there is one huge loophole - the ability to tax nations directly. This will spin out of control very quickly, along the lines of how the original concept of US Income Tax was "just a tiny sum for just a little while".



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
then they will be exploited,

No loop-holes, none.

Already proven wrong by the fact the proposition itself mentions the loop hole.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
and the UN shall "indirectly" gain what it did not "directly" gain.

That is above and beyond any possible logical point.

No, it's English. The UN will gain "indirectly" the taxes that Resolution 4 prevents them from gaining "directly". See? Simple.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
The end becomes the same.

The start becomes different, the left is the right, and the whole world starts rotating in the opposite direction. Now thats been done, can wwe get past the rhetoric ?

Rhetoric? Feh. Perhaps I should be more wordy and hence more clear. "The UN will therefore gain the means to tax directly". Clearer?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
And once opened, the can of worms shall extend and expand ad nauseum,

Leaving worms and rhetoric rotting all across the floor.

Simple example, again. The original concept of US Income Tax was short term, only on the rich. For a time, taxes reached in the 90% for the rich. Now they hit 33% of everyone except the rich, who have subtly over a long period of time corrupted the original intent and created a monster which devours everyone. Why was the original accepted? It was "only a small amount" for "only a short time" which was directed "only at the wealthy". Guess what happened?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
allowing for (indirect) tax after (indirect) tax after (indirect) tax.

No, no and no.

And, pray tell, what prevents future resolutions demanding a greater and greater percentage of your nations GDP? Perhaps I missed that part of the proposal, would you be so kind as to point it out?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
It really does not matter if your funds are taken directly or indirectly - they are still taken, you are still taxed.

So, like so many arguments before us, we see once again " generic thing IS BAAAD ! "


If you will, the idea of an unchecked bureacracy able to levy taxes at a relative whim - and without the ability or means to remove said taxes - scares the hell out of me. So this is not a "generic thing", but a very specific thing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
My personal gripe aside,

Oh no, cause then we'd have nothing to " debate ".

Do please look up the meaning of the word "debate".

My point in choosing those words was to state "in addition to my nation's direct problem with the proposal as stated, these problems follow:". Would that have made it more clear to you?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
to allow the UN to have full control over what would be the largest economy anywhere is to make a huge error,

It would NOT be a bloody economy, its a tax to provide the goods and service you all expect to just fly ou of thin air. It is an attempt to give reality to the situation and provide a pre-text for the creation of fresh material to provide to expand the horizons of the U.N. ! Or something along those lines ...


Very well, how do you define an economy? It appears to us your statement fulfills all necessary parts of an economy, but we are prepared to be enlightened.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
for with such power comes equal corruption.

Yes, yes, and the U.N. is inherently evil, we know, we know.

You may believe so, I do not. It is the idea of the unchecked UN bureacracy having the right to levy taxes at it's discretion, with no way of removing those taxes from it's member nations that we find "evil". Or rather, we find that to be potentially dangerous from what it would create.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
And I have been too long on this Earth to not know how easily corruption comes.

Thats very nice dear. Does it sting ?

Oddly, corruption comes in many guises, most under the guise of [u] attempting to do something for the good of someone else, whether they like it or not[/i].

But then we all know those who manipulate for "your own good", do we not?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
So, do as you will.

Why thank-you ...

You're most welcome.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
Believe as you will.

Certainly do !

Commendable indeed. Many believe only as they are directed to by others.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
Time shall display which is the correct view.

Oh, pretty rhetoric indicating we will be proven wrong


That was not my intent, I apologize for the lack of clarity. In this case, perhaps to say that hindsight is 20/20 would have been better?

The trouble Vastiva has is within it's long tradition of looking to the long view of possible consequences of actions taken. In the small, the resolution is awful because it contravenes a nations' economy. In the large, the resolution is awful because it shall allow a monstrosity equal to frankenstein's to appear, one which has no master save greed.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
It is our position to pre-empt such events as shall make our position known as the "should have been"s.

Should have been tipped. Mainly because this proposal,
Smells faintly of cabbage. .

You are most certainly welcome to your opinion. And I do agree, the proposal to tax member nations does indeed stink. Our approval for your perceptivity of the potential dangers from allowing action within such a loophole to take place.

Go in Peace.

I'm just hoping that once this reaches the floor that we can continue to amend prior resolutions.

The cat's out of the bag folks! :)

Oh, many apologies to the delegate from Mikitivity, but does not the proposal to tax in form "amend" Resolution Four by reinterpreting what it says?

Oh, many apologies to the delegate from Mikitivity, but does not the proposal to tax in form "amend" Resolution Four by reinterpreting what it says?

Nope. It doesn't reinterpret, it merely says that resolution 4 does what it says and nothing more. It just says that since resolution 4 only mentions citizens, when we apply it it should not be applied to anything but citizens.

We are saying that we should follow the letter of this law. You are presuming to know what the spirit was, and then say that we should follow your interpretation of the spirit, ignoring any troublesome specific wording which gets in your way.

Sorry, but there is one huge loophole - the ability to tax nations directly.

:confused: OK, perhaps it's time for someone to wonder why the emperor has no clothes but how can a UN resolution "tax naitons directly." As far as I can tell there is nothing in the NS game world that allows for this and as we all know game mechanic change resolutions are forbidden.

Now you can write a resolution that would cause member nations to increase spending in certain areas. This is an odd loophole because in NS if you increase spending you as a result increase your tax percentage and that's taxing the people. So in practice this shouldn't be allowed either.

However, you can write a resolution that would cause member nations to increase spending in one area and decrease spending in another area, and that would require no increase in taxation levels.

I think this really is a non issue. The real threat is not from some imaginary UN budget, but from unfunded mandates that force spending by UN member nations. Neither the non-tax issue nor this resolution address this more obvious loophole.

We are saying that we should follow the letter of this law. You are presuming to know what the spirit was, and then say that we should follow your interpretation of the spirit, ignoring any troublesome specific wording which gets in your way.

The justification this other nation put forward was that:

The UN is in violation because it directly taxes his leader the Sultan. That justification is no different than saying, the UN is in violation for a resolution outlawing pedophilia, because in his / her nation, their sovereign, a Sultan, is required to have sex with his "helpers" before neogitating a treaty or something, and it just so happens that the current Sultan is 14 years old.

He really is reinterpeting an existing resolution and "amendending" it. Frankly, his proposal should be bumped from the UN queue and his nation issued a warning, because what is to now stop others from going forward and reinterpeting other existing resolutions using the same logic he has put forward.

Finally, his put his resolution in the wrong category. He submitted this as a social justice "significant" resolution. That means he is saying our nations will increase their public welfare programs, though the resolution says nothing to address this. By his on screwed up logic, he would be imposing his own roleplay system, one where welfare is money to his Sultan on other nations.

What would now stop me or your nation _Myopia_ from repealing his resolution if it passes?

No, he is most certainly using the UN to end the UN. I've added him to my ignore list, because frankly in days of the same argument he failed to understand that he has written a repeal of a previous resolution .... worse yet, it is as you say, "The emperor has no clothes." In other words, he has no clue about existing UN resolution categories nor even a solid justification other than, "I don't like that resolution or the UN having a budget."

Fortunately he'll eventually get bored and leave the UN.

I simply admire the ego. I am in awe.

No Point ...

:rolleyes:

The justification this other nation put forward was that:

The UN is in violation because it directly taxes his leader the Sultan. That justification is no different than saying, the UN is in violation for a resolution outlawing pedophilia, because in his / her nation, their sovereign, a Sultan, is required to have sex with his "helpers" before neogitating a treaty or something, and it just so happens that the current Sultan is 14 years old.

He really is reinterpeting an existing resolution and "amendending" it. Frankly, his proposal should be bumped from the UN queue and his nation issued a warning, because what is to now stop others from going forward and reinterpeting other existing resolutions using the same logic he has put forward.

Finally, his put his resolution in the wrong category. He submitted this as a social justice "significant" resolution. That means he is saying our nations will increase their public welfare programs, though the resolution says nothing to address this. By his on screwed up logic, he would be imposing his own roleplay system, one where welfare is money to his Sultan on other nations.

What would now stop me or your nation _Myopia_ from repealing his resolution if it passes?

No, he is most certainly using the UN to end the UN. I've added him to my ignore list, because frankly in days of the same argument he failed to understand that he has written a repeal of a previous resolution .... worse yet, it is as you say, "The emperor has no clothes." In other words, he has no clue about existing UN resolution categories nor even a solid justification other than, "I don't like that resolution or the UN having a budget."

Fortunately he'll eventually get bored and leave the UN.

I know the argument he put forward that applied to his own nation, and I agree that it is ridiculous. The comment you quoted was a counter to his more general argument included in his proposal text, which appears to be that his proposal is sealing a loophole left by the wording of R-4 - and he claims that what he is doing is in keeping with the spirit of the original resolution.

It really does not matter if your funds are taken directly or indirectly - they are still taken, you are still taxed.
My major sticking point on this is simple. It appears that Vastiva wants to remove for all time the possibility of charging member nations for the benefits (laughably unpleasant as they may be) they recieve from UN membership. I don't understand this at all, I really don't.

The RL UN charges dues to members. These numbers are miniscule, on the order of .0035% of GNP for the larger nations. Somebody has to pay the light bill at the big building in New York. Somebody has to pay shipping on those AIDS vaccines that everyone seemed to want shipped to third world countries. Somebody pays for all the little oversight committees that the membership has voted into place. The RL UN does this and is considerably less powerful than the NS UN.

The UN exists in this game. That's a fact. It has powers far in excess of the RL UN, also a fact. It has the legal ability (via the coding process of several of the possible choices) to require unfunded mandates be implemented, and a Compliance Ministry which enforces said mandates automatically. The power of taxation that Vastiva so despises is hard-coded into the game.

UN membership is voluntary, so these effects may be alleviated by resigning. That limits the UN's ability to create "an unchecked bureacracy", as resignation neatly removes that possibility. As long as members receive benefits from the UN (ability to raid and ability to manage regions are the two biggies I can see offhand), why should they not be charged for those benefits?

With power comes responsibility. If you accept the power that the UN gives your nation, then you have a responsibility to pay for that power. It's a voluntary membership, so it is your choice, not UN compulsion, that creates that 'tax'. I believe firmly in the idea that 'you get what you pay for', and this proposal allows you to 'get' but not pay. I think that's just plain wrong.

First of all I do want to say taht I am not in favor of the resolution for all the reasons cited. However, I do think that in some very important ways the RW UN is not like the NS UN, and all these ways translate into dollars and cents.

The Real World UN does a lot of things that the NS UN is forbidden by game rules from doing. The biggest of these is actions to specific nations as opposed to uniform actions affecting all the nations as a whole. This ranges from beneficial aid to punative sanctions, and it is completely illegal in the NS UN. That entire infrastructure is where most of the UN's budget goes.

There is, of course the actual headquarters itself. It obviously costs money to run the NS UN. Assuming that all the deligates are actually in the same location, it's going to cost a good deal of money to run the NS UN. (Think of a congressional chamber that is the size of a major sports stadium.)

Even then, the matter of funding the UN at this level is minor. While the expenses appear large, so too are the number of deligates. It's an honor to be a UN representative and you really shouldn't compain about all the fees and everything it takes to live in this august body.

The Great George Washington, when he was appointed as General of the Continential (later United States) Army, refused a sallery, instead insisting that they only had to pay his expenses. He kept meticulous records and sent congress many bills. Finally he was elected President under the new Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. He wanted to do the same thing, but Congress was wise, and insisted that he get a sallery, because otherwise he would have bankrupted the nation. :p

The moral to this story is that there is more than one way to get revenue. Taxes are the obvious. Hidden expenses are another way to sneak revenue into the system. When you purchase an imported item, how often do you realize that it is you who is in effect paying all the tarrifs that were imposed on the item being imported. When you purchase a lunch you are paying the property tax of the store owner. The third manner, which is the most common in all NationStates UN Resolutions is the unfunded mandate. You must do something, and you have to come up with the money to do it, because we the UN says so.

Given this, it is not necessary to require the option of taxes, and it is silly to simply oppose one method out of many of possible revenue collection.

It's an honor to be a UN representative and you really shouldn't compain about all the fees and everything it takes to live in this august body.
There are no fees. There are no expenses. This UN has been living in denial of the concept of income since it was founded. I imagine the owner of the building is getting a bit pissed by now. He's never been paid.

As for the rest of the things you proposed ... well, under this proposal, we would be unable to use any of them. If the UN wanted to open a gift shop and offer souvenirs of the Great Debates between Vastiva and Mikitivity, they wouldn't be able to accept any profit. That would be an indirect way of taking money from a citizen of a UN member. "Oh, wait," you say, "what about non-UN tourists?" Well sure, let's get our entire operating budget by ripping off non-UN citizens. That'll go over well.

I agree with Vastiva that there needs to be a way to prevent the UN from becoming an uncontrolled bureaucracy. This proposal ain't it.

The power of taxation that Vastiva so despises is hard-coded into the game.


I believe firmly in the idea that 'you get what you pay for', and this proposal allows you to 'get' but not pay. I think that's just plain wrong.

If the power of taxation is hard-coded into the game, which it is, wouldn't a proposal to change that be a violation of game mechanics?

Second, yup. You can't simply have a UN that passes all of these resolutions (good and bad) without expecting the game to pass a tax along each and every time.

Personally, I think his proposal should be treated with the same level of moderation as Hersfold's resolution. Vastiva clearly is attempting to change game mechanics ... I'm just wondering why the mods zapped a resolution (not proposal) that was designed to be inclusive of players and are allowing a proposal that really is trying to say, "The UN can do nothing in the future that requires money!" :rollseyes:

If the power of taxation is hard-coded into the game, which it is, wouldn't a proposal to change that be a violation of game mechanics?

Second, yup. You can't simply have a UN that passes all of these resolutions (good and bad) without expecting the game to pass a tax along each and every time.

Personally, I think his proposal should be treated with the same level of moderation as Hersfold's resolution. Vastiva clearly is attempting to change game mechanics ... I'm just wondering why the mods zapped a resolution (not proposal) that was designed to be inclusive of players and are allowing a proposal that really is trying to say, "The UN can do nothing in the future that requires money!" :rollseyes:

I am truly amazed. He states he's "permaIgnoring" me, and yet every other paragraph, there I am, there my ideas are.

You really have to wonder at this one. How deep under his skin did I get?

You're just a loveable guy, Oh Mighty Sultan. A genuine threat to Democracy Everywhere.

btw, this proposal isn't still active, is it? Hasn't been for some time, I noticed. All this discussion has been about a dead proposal ... not that I mind or anything. It's still a fun argument, as long as we try to keep the invective to a minimum.





That's a hint, Mikitivity. And Vastiva. And that bastard Frisbeeteria.

" Ding ! Dong ! The doc-u-ment is dead ! ... " ?

;)

I'm just glad that shit Komokom has not gotten too involved yet ...