NationStates Jolt Archive

With thanks to Gruenberg and Kivisto:

Repeal "Mutual Recognition of Borders"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #190 (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=189)
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: UN Resolution #190: Mutual Recognition of Borders (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=189) (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and declared null and void.

Argument: Determined to preserve global peace and stability through international initiatives to prevent unnecessary violence and bloodshed;

Pleased with the progress made so far in that area, in the shape of numerous resolutions seizing the United Nations and its membership of the matter, further promoting peaceful relations between member states, and mitigating the harmful effects of warfare on innocents;

Dismayed, however, that Mutual Recognition of Borders accomplishes next to nothing to that end;

Unimpressed by the resolution's establishment of a committee to review disputed borders, with no clear purpose, constitution, duties, or mandate that parties seeking its assistance agree to abide by its findings;

Concerned that wasteful and superfluous committees such as this will do nothing to promote global peace and security or prevent unnecessary loss of life in wars stemming from border disputes;

Disappointed that the resolution contains no check whatsoever against colonialist or imperialist aggressions;

Troubled that aggressor nations seeking to wage war on their neighbors and contribute to regional and international instability could conceivably circumvent the mandates of this article by simply disputing currently undisputed international borders;

Convinced that the recognition of international borders should remain the province of the nations who share them ("invisible tree people" or no);

We hereby resolve, in witness of all here assembled, that Resolution #190: Mutual Recognition of Borders contributes little more than wasteful bureaucracy and pointless lip-service to the worthy goal of containing the imperialist ambitions of corrupt powers and protecting the peoples of disputed territories from the catastrophic effects of resulting border wars, and is therefore repealed.>>> Link for approvals (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=mutual)

You might want to tone the rhetoric down a bit by cutting stuff like "next to nothing" and the reference to invisible tree people, but otherwise, this looks pretty good. Nice work, my friend.

Cheers,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I was actually urged to tone it up during drafting, but if others feel it's too harsh, I may dial it back a tad. I never intended for "invisible tree people" thing to be in the final product anyway. :p

Just a bit over the top for UN legislation, that's all.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I've got not problem with the rhetoric; my only concern is actually the "tree people" part- doesn't that border on metagaming, making reference to the actual debates? It's funny, but I don't want it to screw the proposal.

Uhh, OK. The treepeople thing is not going to be in the submitted version.

Any suggestions/arguments/unfounded accusations/picture spam? ;)

Any suggestions/arguments/unfounded accusations/picture spam?

Approve this now to prevent rampant ecclesiastical self-defenestration.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/temp/jacknuns.gif

It's your duty to GOD!

Don't tone it down. We need to get some life back in our lives.

Approve this now to prevent rampant ecclesiastical self-defenestration.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/temp/jacknuns.gif

It's your duty to GOD!

It's awfully early in the conversation to say something like this, but Fris wins the picture spam portion of this conversation.:p

Fris wins the picture spam portion of this conversation.:p

Happy nuns approve of your approval.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/temp/jesus.gif

I like this just the way it is. Do not tone it down.


The only other thing I have to say is, Fris, you rock!

Bearing in mind who the proposer of this repeal is, we find it necessary to ask whether the honoured representative has any replacement legislation in mind. If so, could the current state of thought on that project be shared with us, for all that it may be an incomplete work at this stage.

While we appreciate your efforts to elevate the tone of this discussion, we note with regret that we hadn't any replacement in mind. The moderators have already said the proposers of repeals are under no obligation to offer replacement bills, and we take them at their word. However, seeing as how you are the only one so far clamoring for replacement, and your keyboard clearly isn't busted, perhaps you should give it a shot?

I'm washing my hands of any thoughts of competing with the Fris-man's image spam.

http://static.flickr.com/45/150667521_19045e71bb_o.gif

* ooc: Would anyone be so kind as to post a link to the original discussion thread for the resolution under threat? My memory of the debate is fuzzy, to say the least. Thank you. *

Drafting thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=507823) and the voting thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=510305).

I simply will not countenance supporting this proposal and any subsequent legislation to repeal "Mutual Recognition of Borders."

Once again this is a case where a nation is unhappy with the requirements of the resolution and is bound and determined to get rid of it.

Burma Shave.

Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Perhaps you haven't been reading, Ambassador? The original resolution has no requirements to speak of. It's worthless, pointless, a waste of space, a waste of time, and in our humble opinion deserving of a royal flushing. That's why we want to junk it. Good day.

While we might have voted for it at the time...my memory is kinda in an Wild Turkey induced alcoholic fog on the issue.....We of the Palentine heartedly endorse the sentiments that the proposal does Jack Shit...and Jack just left town, so all that remains is to nuke the old proposal. Here is "Annie" with a demonstration of the proper proposal nuking technique.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/atomic_annie_test.gif
(OOC:Now I've done my bit of image spam,so I can be serious about the rest of the debate.:D )

Perhaps you haven't been reading, Ambassador? The original resolution has no requirements to speak of. It's worthless, pointless, a waste of space, a waste of time, and in our humble opinion deserving of a royal flushing. That's why we want to junk it. Good day.

Woke up on the wrong side of South Park today?

I do read, and contrary to popular opinion not everyone in this world thinks alike. Suffice to say while I appreciate your position, we do not agree.

Good luck to you and those who support you.

Ambassador Thomas Lynniston
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Suffice to say while I appreciate your position, we do not agree.

Good luck to you and those who support you.

Ambassador Thomas Lynniston
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

While the well-wishing is greatly appreciated, what is there to actually disagree about? Mutual Recognition of Borders accomplishes nothing. It's waving a hankerchief at tornado to slow it down. It's a statement that there are problems, with no real solution to follow it up, not even a proper sentiment in that regards. It is this:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/Catz/safety_measure.jpg

Without the cute value.

While we appreciate your efforts to elevate the tone of this discussion, we note with regret that we hadn't any replacement in mind. The moderators have already said the proposers of repeals are under no obligation to offer replacement bills, and we take them at their word. However, seeing as how you are the only one so far clamoring for replacement, and your keyboard clearly isn't busted, perhaps you should give it a shot?

Or perhaps not. Our purpose was merely to determine the reason for introducing the repeal, and we thank you for answering that.

Perhaps you haven't been reading, Ambassador? The original resolution has no requirements to speak of. It's worthless, pointless, a waste of space, a waste of time, and in our humble opinion deserving of a royal flushing. That's why we want to junk it. Good day.

If the original resolution has no requirements, and therefore does nothing and provides no bar to future legislation, why are you wasting the UN's time attempting to repeal it?

While the well-wishing is greatly appreciated, what is there to actually disagree about? Mutual Recognition of Borders accomplishes nothing. It's waving a hankerchief at tornado to slow it down. It's a statement that there are problems, with no real solution to follow it up, not even a proper sentiment in that regards. It is this:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/Catz/safety_measure.jpg

Without the cute value.

Two things:

1. A resolution with no enforcement clause may be easily defined as a "Sense of the United Nations" statement.

2. IF enforcement language was put into the document, it is unlikely this august body would have agreed to it.

Basically what we have currently is a statement issued by the UN on position and we have delegates and member nations on the record showing their positions on the matter. Short of a resolution with enforcement language, I am content with a statement on record showing nation's positions on this matter.

Not everything we do needs to have enforcement language, especially if the insertion of enforcement language would doom a good resolution to failure.

Nations' legislative bodies routinely issue non-binding resolutions and statements of position. The UN is no different.

If the good nation of Ohmygodtheykilledkenny was interested in a resolution with enforcement language then I might be impressed with this repeal measure. But as the author of a repeal resolution is under no obligation to follow up with a resolution addressing the alleged problems, I am content to not support this repeal until such time as someone is willing to take BOTH steps.

Until such time I wish you both a fine day.

Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

If the original resolution has no requirements, and therefore does nothing and provides no bar to future legislation, why are you wasting the UN's time attempting to repeal it?
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You're saying we should keep on entirely worthless resolutions and the committees they establish just because clearing out the muck would inconvenience you? How utterly facile.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

If the original resolution has no requirements, and therefore does nothing and provides no bar to future legislation, why are you wasting the UN's time attempting to repeal it?

Why are you wasting your time attempting to tell us to keep useless resolutions in the UN?

Two things:

1. A resolution with no enforcement clause may be easily defined as a "Sense of the United Nations" statement.

Preposterous. If all the UN is good for is publishing statements of feeling, then my nation will be submitting some very nice resolutions stating support for war and genocide. We'll see how much the United Nations has a "sense" of that.

2. IF enforcement language was put into the document, it is unlikely this august body would have agreed to it.

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week. Your contention is "if the resolution actually did anything, no one would have voted for it in the first place!"

Ridiculous. Moronic, and ridiculous.

Basically what we have currently is a statement issued by the UN on position and we have delegates and member nations on the record showing their positions on the matter. Short of a resolution with enforcement language, I am content with a statement on record showing nation's positions on this matter.

No. That is stupid.

Not everything we do needs to have enforcement language, especially if the insertion of enforcement language would doom a good resolution to failure.

No. That is stupid.

Nations' legislative bodies routinely issue non-binding resolutions and statements of position. The UN is no different.

No. That is stupid.

If the good nation of Ohmygodtheykilledkenny was interested in a resolution with enforcement language then I might be impressed with this repeal measure. But as the author of a repeal resolution is under no obligation to follow up with a resolution addressing the alleged problems, I am content to not support this repeal until such time as someone is willing to take BOTH steps.


Are your fingers broken? Have you lost the ability to think critically and the ability to write? Or are you just content to whine and bitch about the lack of a replacement?

Here's a novel idea! Why don't YOU take both steps! My god! It's brilliant!

Preposterous. If all the UN is good for is publishing statements of feeling, then my nation will be submitting some very nice resolutions stating support for war and genocide. We'll see how much the United Nations has a "sense" of that.

<sigh> Read this very carefully. Legislative bodies not only craft laws, but make statements of position and intent. That is not preposterous, it is how they function. What is preposterous is being close minded enough not to see how the world works. If you can get the 27,000 or so nations and delegates to support such a statement by a majority then you can do anything you like.


This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week. Your contention is "if the resolution actually did anything, no one would have voted for it in the first place!"

If you don't believe that such a thing has occurred both in this body and in real life in legislative bodies then you are the one who is ridiculously naive. I have kept my tone moderate and non-insulting. You might consider toning down your rhetoric.


Ridiculous. Moronic, and ridiculous.

Ah, yes. A fine point of logic you make here. What shall I do to respond to this? Call you names? Eh?


No. That is stupid.

Original argument.



No. That is stupid.

Look, a vocabulary of four words. I'm stunned at your masterful command of the English language.


No. That is stupid.

Egad! I'm mortified. You called me stupid.


Are your fingers broken? Have you lost the ability to think critically and the ability to write? Or are you just content to whine and bitch about the lack of a replacement?

Listen to me very carefully sir, I'm a fair guy, but I am growing incredibly pissed off at your tone and word choices. Not one iota of my argument has been whining and bitching. I choose not to support the proposal. I have said so politely. If I WERE interested in a replacement to the resolution, I would SUPPORT Kenny's actions. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE REPEAL.

Move on and get over it, and until you may hold a polite discussion with me, you can go have an argument on the playground with all of the little kindergarteners like yourself who instead of addressing Ambassadors of sovereign nations with respect are insulting, crass and rude.


Here's a novel idea! Why don't YOU take both steps! My god! It's brilliant!

I have a brilliant idea, why don't you? You don't like the resolution, you fix it. Frankly, I don't give a damn either way. I'm weary of you and those like you who go on a repeal spree and don't feel any responsibility for your actions.

Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week. Your contention is "if the resolution actually did anything, no one would have voted for it in the first place!"

That's not ridiculous, that’s the basic underlying principle behind getting any good stat wanking resolution passed. If the resolution appears to actually so something, someone will strongly object to it. If the resolution does not appear to do anything no one can object to it. If you make a resolution too strong the national sovereignty group would lobby against it. We have to make an assumption that some of the fundamental principles of the universe are not actually defined, but we can’t outright admit that the emperor has no clothes. Borders are one fine example. Technically they don’t exist! What are the borders to Retired Werepenguins? Where is the official list of all those nations that border my nation? It does not exist! The emperor has no clothes! But we can’t admit that, can we?

You see this fine material of a UN resolution? Isn’t it a lovely color? Isn’t it a soft texture? Only those people who realize that their own sanity requires them not to appear naked will appreciate the fine nature of this beautiful UN resolution. (And no, I didn’t call it a lavender resolution because the people who hate lavender colored resolutions would have not voted for it. But they can pretend it’s not a lavender colored resolution even though I think it was and we are both happy.)

Wow. Does that even need a rebuttal?

<sigh> Read this very carefully. Legislative bodies not only craft laws, but make statements of position and intent. That is not preposterous, it is how they function. What is preposterous is being close minded enough not to see how the world works. If you can get the 27,000 or so nations and delegates to support such a statement by a majority then you can do anything you like.

<sigh>

See, I can be petulant too.

You might be confusing the UN with some other organization. We don't pass statements of intent, we legislate on issues with international merit, like radiological terrorism, human rights, and education. To say that a resolution that doesn't do anything should remain on the books because it expresses an opinion and nothing more is just silly.

If you don't believe that such a thing has occurred both in this body and in real life in legislative bodies then you are the one who is ridiculously naive.

See, when debating in the UN, Real Life bodies don't come into play. Show me good legislation that doesn't do anything and I'll show you a sober Kennyite.

Listen to me very carefully sir, I'm a fair guy, but I am growing incredibly pissed off at your tone and word choices. Not one iota of my argument has been whining and bitching. I choose not to support the proposal. I have said so politely. If I WERE interested in a replacement to the resolution, I would SUPPORT Kenny's actions. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE REPEAL.

What I'm seeing is just complaining. You don't want the proposal repealed because it doesn't do anything, but you wouldn't be willing to repeal it and write a replacement that actually does?

It all makes sense now.

Move on and get over it, and until you may hold a polite discussion with me, you can go have an argument on the playground with all of the little kindergarteners like yourself who instead of addressing Ambassadors of sovereign nations with respect are insulting, crass and rude.

Deal with it.



I have a brilliant idea, why don't you? You don't like the resolution, you fix it. Frankly, I don't give a damn either way. I'm weary of you and those like you who go on a repeal spree and don't feel any responsibility for your actions.

I don't want to fix it. I want it repealed and gone, because it doesn't do anything. If someone else wants to replace it, they can write a replacement. Me? I don't want it replaced. Once it's repealed, I will be content to shovel dirt on it's grave and say good riddance.

There is a repeal function for a reason. I'll let you in on a secret- it's used to repeal bad resolutions!

Rang Erman
Advisor
Officer of Arguing

It is a useless resolution, I support it's repeal.

Backing up in the conversation a little bit.

Two things:

1. A resolution with no enforcement clause may be easily defined as a "Sense of the United Nations" statement.

It could be, I agree. That this resolution doesn't make any meaningful statements of the sort would still cause me to wish its repeal.

2. IF enforcement language was put into the document, it is unlikely this august body would have agreed to it.

I couldn't rightly say how likely or unlikely the passage of it would have been, though I do agree that it is definitely more difficult to force nations to do something instead of just suggesting it. That said, however, considering the nature of the resolution in question, preventing war does not happen through suggestion.

Basically what we have currently is a statement issued by the UN on position and we have delegates and member nations on the record showing their positions on the matter. Short of a resolution with enforcement language, I am content with a statement on record showing nation's positions on this matter.

What statement would that be? The entire resolution comes down to this: Recognize any undisputed borders.

Good. Great. Fantastic. Those borders that are not under any dispute will be recognized. That accomplishes.....nothing.

If the good nation of Ohmygodtheykilledkenny was interested in a resolution with enforcement language then I might be impressed with this repeal measure. But as the author of a repeal resolution is under no obligation to follow up with a resolution addressing the alleged problems, I am content to not support this repeal until such time as someone is willing to take BOTH steps.

Well, at least you're open about it, and acknowledge that the repeal author isn't under any obligation in that regard.

Until such time I wish you both a fine day.

I regret that we could not come to a more complete mutual understanding, Mr Linniston. Perhaps over some other issue.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You're saying we should keep on entirely worthless resolutions and the committees they establish just because clearing out the muck would inconvenience you? How utterly facile.

Not at all. We are merely saying that this chamber has far higher priorities than taking pot-shots at sleeping dragons, if I may use a Gobbannaen figure of speech. That being the case, we are slightly bemused at the insistence of the author and their supporters that this must be done lest the sky fall. Or some such.

Frankly we would rather that the author had come clean and admitted that they simply do not wish the UN to be poking its nose into the matter of International Borders. We can imagine many persuasive arguments that could be brought to bear for such a repeal motion. Sadly we are presented with an argument than can be summarised as offending the author's sense of tidiness.

Not at all. We are merely saying that this chamber has far higher priorities than taking pot-shots at sleeping dragons, if I may use a Gobbannaen figure of speech. That being the case, we are slightly bemused at the insistence of the author and their supporters that this must be done lest the sky fall. Or some such.I take it, then, that the sky is going to fall if we do bother striking out bad law? "Taking pot-shot at sleeping dragons"? Priceless.

Frankly we would rather that the author had come clean and admitted that they simply do not wish the UN to be poking its nose into the matter of International Borders.Oh. You mean something like this?:

Convinced that the recognition of international borders should remain the province of the nations who share them

We can imagine many persuasive arguments that could be brought to bear for such a repeal motion. Sadly we are presented with an argument than can be summarised as offending the author's sense of tidiness.I'm sorry; I guess I never knew that ridding government of wasteful legislation and superfluous bureaucracy were goals unworthy of the UN's time. Carry on.

*snip*Wonderful rhetoric, Ambassador. But unless you have any substantive arguments at all addressing anything in the actual repeal, we see no point at all to dabbling in irrelevancies. We're not offering a replacement. So what? Ambassadors use strong language. Again, so what? The moderators have already ruled on both matters, and against you, I'm afraid. So, what in the actual document we are considering today is undesirable?

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

This is a well written, but a little overly aggresive resolution. I applaude your good sense in recognizing a poor proposal and repealling it. If this proposal goes to vote our nation will vote for it.

Lawson Henderson, Seventh Avenue Ambassador to the UN

I regret that we could not come to a more complete mutual understanding, Mr Linniston. Perhaps over some other issue.

I appreciate your courtesy and respectful tone. That will do wonders for us on other issues, and I am certain that we WILL come to agree on future issues.

I have consistently taken issue, not with repeals, but with the authors of repeals who feel no obligation or sense of responsibility for their actions.

Truthfully this is a small matter on my nation's radar. We recognize all UN and independent nations borders without exception. We think there should be a mechanism for enforcing those borders among UN nations. I seriously doubt such a resolution will come to fruition, as such even a statement with no real effect acknowledging such borders is better than nothing at all for me.

Thank you for your courtesy.

Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Wonderful rhetoric, Ambassador. But unless you have any substantive arguments at all addressing anything in the actual repeal, we see no point at all to dabbling in irrelevancies. We're not offering a replacement. So what? Ambassadors use strong language. Again, so what? The moderators have already ruled on both matters, and against you, I'm afraid. So, what in the actual document we are considering today is undesirable?

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Ms. Chiang,

I have said what I intended to say. Suffice to say I have respect for the moderators and the thankless jobs they do.

Any furtherance of this conversation is fruitless, as I stated earlier, we do not agree. My reasons are my own, just as your reasons are yours. The sole difference is that I do not have allies who engage in pointless name calling and act like first graders. I strive to be courteous, respectful and professional on the floor of this body. Sometimes I fail and I regret that, but I do not make a habit of insulting a fellow Ambassador because our points of view differ.

If the moderators and you feel that such behavior is acceptable then I must bow to that. But I will not stoop to that level if I can avoid it.

Frankly, I was offended, but registered no complaint. Let's just call this a day, shall we? Distance will benefit us both greatly.

T.B.L
Ambassador to the UN
CoS

You're absolutely right, Ambassador. Why bore ourselves with commentary that might be remotely relevant to the topic at hand when we can alienate our colleagues and annoy the moderators with schoolmarmish finger-wagging and condescending lectures?

~Cdr. Chiang

taking pot-shots at sleeping dragonsHrumph. Everybody always paints dragons as bad guys.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Hrumph. Everybody always paints dragons as bad guys.

Personally, I blame Puff. He gave all dragons a very bad reputation.

I take it, then, that the sky is going to fall if we do bother striking out bad law? "Taking pot-shot at sleeping dragons"? Priceless.
The Commander misinterprets our colloquialism. Taking a pot-shot at a dragon is a largely ineffectual practice that occasionally does some good (few people habitually carrying rocket launchers for the purpose), and occasionally gets the shooter eaten.

We do not particularly object to the striking out of perceived bad law, though the honoured representative from Schwartzchild has indicated reasons why that perception may be flawed, particularly in this case. We merely don't consider that the reasons offered merit any sort of positive priority.

I'm sorry; I guess I never knew that ridding government of wasteful legislation and superfluous bureaucracy were goals unworthy of the UN's time. Carry on.
We remain curious as to the urgency with which we are abjured to deal with something that it is insisted will change nothing, and the rapidity with which the argument presented changes depending on the questioner. It does rather appear at times that the Commander is attempting to have her cake and eat it.

Hrumph. Everybody always paints dragons as bad guys.

No disrespect was intended, Madam Ambassador. Gobbannaen dragons are non-sapient carnivores, and one can hardly fault them for reacting irritably when disturbed. The domesticated miniature breeds are quite friendly, though we will never understand what possessed anyone to breed them in the first place.

The Ambassador's Undersecretary can be heard muttering, "If you try harder, you can get the other foot in there too."

You're absolutely right, Ambassador. Why bore ourselves with commentary that might be remotely relevant to the topic at hand when we can alienate our colleagues and annoy the moderators with schoolmarmish finger-wagging and condescending lectures?

~Cdr. Chiang

Frankly Commander, most commentary here is calling names and pointing fingers anyway. It is part of the unique "charm" of this body. Pot, kettle, black, Madam.

Why should my "condescending lectures" be cause for concern when most here are simply content to call each other names and question those who disagree with them as some either mentally retarded git or drooling moron?

Look to your own house, Commander. I most assuredly will look to mine.

Ambassador Lynniston

Look, unless you have something to post that might actually have something to do with the friggin' repeal, stop posting here.

Having discovered yet again the folly of trying to draft something on Jolt, barring any relevant suggestions that may come our way in the interim, we will submit this next week.

<sigh> Read this very carefully. Legislative bodies not only craft laws, but make statements of position and intent. That is not preposterous, it is how they function. What is preposterous is being close minded enough not to see how the world works. If you can get the 27,000 or so nations and delegates to support such a statement by a majority then you can do anything you like.

Read this very carefully: The UN does not work like normal legislative bodies, be it Real Life or not.


If you don't believe that such a thing has occurred both in this body and in real life in legislative bodies then you are the one who is ridiculously naive. I have kept my tone moderate and non-insulting. You might consider toning down your rhetoric.

Point 1: Huh? Read the above statement; you are contradicting yourself.
Point 2: Tone down his rhetoric? You're the only one using rhetoric here: You're covering up your meaningless sentences to make them seem smarter. You're only fooling yourself.


Look, a vocabulary of four words. I'm stunned at your masterful command of the English language.

Um... Are you that stupid? Or can you not comprehend sarcasm enough to create a good piece of it? It's called making a point; one should think you'd be acquainted with such things.


Egad! I'm mortified. You called me stupid.

Look who's namecalling now, buster.


Listen to me very carefully sir, I'm a fair guy, but I am growing incredibly pissed off at your tone and word choices. Not one iota of my argument has been whining and bitching.
You leave me little choice but to guffaw at the blatant work of hypocrisy.


Move on and get over it, and until you may hold a polite discussion with me, you can go have an argument on the playground with all of the little kindergarteners like yourself who instead of addressing Ambassadors of sovereign nations with respect are insulting, crass and rude.

Is this the part where the "Hypocrite Alarm" goes off?


I have a brilliant idea, why don't you? You don't like the resolution, you fix it. Frankly, I don't give a damn either way. I'm weary of you and those like you who go on a repeal spree and don't feel any responsibility for your actions.
I agree with Allech-Atreus: I want this piece of garbage eliminated. Not replaced. Furthermore, what "repeal spree" are you referring to, and why should anyone feel any bad responsibility for removing and burning a piece of junk such as said resolution? All I see is a buch of poorly organized words taking up valuable kilobytes.

Frederic Clemenceau
Akimonad UN Delegacy
Officer of Debating

I agree with Allech-Atreus: I want this piece of garbage eliminated. Not replaced. Furthermore, what "repeal spree" are you referring to, and why should anyone feel any bad responsibility for removing and burning a piece of junk such as said resolution? All I see is a buch of poorly organized words taking up valuable kilobytes.

Frederic Clemenceau
Akimonad UN Delegacy
Officer of Debating

Monsieur Clemenceu,

My discussion with Allech-Atreus is over and you were not invited into the discussion. Is it your habit to wait until a discussion is over and then continue to heap insults and reignite the argument?

Kindly shut up and stick your nose into somebody else's business.

Good day, sir.

Kindly shut up and stick your nose into somebody else's business.

If you don't want someone to comment on what you say, don't say it in a public forum.

And back to the original subject, we are in favor of this repeal. We applaud the concept of mediation to resolve border disputes, but find the original resolution appallingly ineffective in resolving anything other than providing jobs for useless committee members.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

If you don't want someone to comment on what you say, don't say it in a public forum.

And back to the original subject, we are in favor of this repeal. We applaud the concept of mediation to resolve border disputes, but find the original resolution appallingly ineffective in resolving anything other than providing jobs for useless committee members.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I don't mind comments during the time in which the ACTUAL conversation is happening, what I do mind is sniping. If he had joined the discussion when it was happening I wouldn't have reacted the way I did.

Of course, I'm wrong and you folks are always right. That is completely obvious.

I don't mind comments during the time in which the ACTUAL conversation is happening, what I do mind is sniping. If he had joined the discussion when it was happening I wouldn't have reacted the way I did.

M. Clemenceau's an idiot, but that doesn't mean you aren't being an idiot too. Not everyone is able to get to the chamber at the same time. cut the guy some slack. Then ignore him, because he hates the whole idea of MRB and you're never going to convince him otherwise.

(OOC: for example, I should be in bed)

Cerys Coch,
Permanant Undersecretary to...

Monsieur Clemenceu,

My discussion with Allech-Atreus is over and you were not invited into the discussion. Is it your habit to wait until a discussion is over and then continue to heap insults and reignite the argument?

Kindly shut up and stick your nose into somebody else's business.

Good day, sir.

We weren't aware that anyone had given you the authority to tell other members of this Assembly what they were and were not permitted to comment on. We were also unaware that any member of this Assembly was required to have an invitation to join in a discussion.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Submitted for a test run; can't post the link, or campaign for it, because some idiot got in ahead of me with a repeal of his own. Ah, well.

OOC: That bites. *sigh* Ah, well, at least we'll get something of a preview as to what the push to get this thing through might be like. When the time comes for the actual campaign, Kenny, let me know if you want any help with the TGing.

You've got your first approval.

And your third. I would have gotten there earlier but I was called away for the morning.

Shame you can't TG for this run through. If you need a hand with that for another go around, let me know. I'll do what I can to help.

If you need assistance with a TG campaign, consider me a volunteer.

Submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=mutual). Tell a friend!

I'll tell two people, and they'll tell two people, and they'll tell two people, and that's like, six people right there!

Rani Teel
Janitor

Bump, damn you.

Coming soon to a General Assembly near you... (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=mutual)

Did you know that if you repeat the word quorum over and over and over again really quickly, it very rapidly loses any truly coherent meaning to you.

quorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorum quorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorum

How interesting! :rolleyes:

OOC: Well done, Kenny. :cool: Lemme know if you want any TG help when the time comes.

When I repeat it over and over quickly one word becomes plainly apparent.

quorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorumquorum