NationStates Jolt Archive

A little something we've been cooking up in ACCEL (mostly because we're bored and got nothing else to do), submitted for a test run:

Repeal "SPCC Regulation Act" (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=spcc)
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #58 (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=57)
Proposed by: Surly the Repealinator

Description: UN Resolution #58: SPCC Regulation Act (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=57) (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

Recognising that Resolution #58, SPCC Regulation Act, was intended as an extension of Resolution #11, Ban Single-Hulled Tankers, which remains in effect,

Equally recognising that SPCC Regulation Act in no way:
- extends, adds to, or even realizes any of the provisions of the earlier resolution,
- enacts any form of regulation,
- does anything to prevent, clean or control oil spills,
- or in fact accomplishes anything, of any nature, whatsoever, other than to vaguely waffle on in a trite march of irrelevancies while entirely neglecting to place a single obligation on member nations,

Regretting that SPCC Regulation Act intended to set up a system for "Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures," but in fact did no such thing,

Rejecting the notion that there is any point maintaining a resolution whose entire substance has all the legislative effect of a small child whining "waaah, Mummy! I don't like it! waaah!",

Agreeing with the concept of demonstrating the UN's commitment to genuine and effective international law rather than useless and annoyingly brattish screams of infantile indignation by striking out through repeal such a thoroughly terrible resolution,

And remaining safe in the knowledge that this repeal will in no way allow any irresponsibility or laxity of regulation in the transportation of oil or hazardous chemicals, given the original resolution makes no provisions to such effect:

Hereby repeals SPCC Regulation Act.

Authored by Gruenberg.OMGZAPPROVE!!!!1111 (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=spcc) :eek:

Fine with me

I fully agree that UN resolution 58 is a wholly worthless piece of...worthlessness...and therefore, in general, would be in favor of its repeal.

However, the tone of the repeal under discussion (specifically, in the clause where the "legislative effect" of resolution 58 is discussed) seems inappropriate for such a (theoretically) august body as the United Nations.

I therefore withhold approval, but would probably, albeit with reluctance, support the resolution if it came to vote.

-the Plutonian ambassador

OOC: I vote against purely on the basis that it doesn't look like any of my contributions were used.

OOC: I vote against purely on the basis that it doesn't look like any of my contributions were used.That's really kinda petty.

Keep in mind I could only list one co-author, and since Gruen is the main author, and you borrowed largely from him in your draft, I thought it appropriate to keep his version mostly intact. I did however think your idea to inform the reader what SPCC meant was a good one, so I took this clause:

Recognizing the intent of UNR# 58 as an attempt to establish “Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures”,added to it, and inserted it below the "Equally recognizing" clause.

Also, I am not campaigning for this submission, so if it doesn't make quorum, which it likely won't, you have an opportunity to contribute to this draft.

Now, what of your draft, that is missing from Gruen's, would you like to see included?

That's really kinda petty.

Aww. I'm hurt.

Now, what of your draft, that is missing from Gruen's, would you like to see included?

Nothing. That's fine. After all, it's still genius.

However, the tone of the repeal under discussion (specifically, in the clause where the "legislative effect" of resolution 58 is discussed) seems inappropriate for such a (theoretically) august body as the United Nations.Is that so? Well then, allow me to quote a report of some recent transpirings in this "august" body:

But there were also 12 defenestrations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11991966&postcount=200), three "Destructor Bunny (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12011477&postcount=285)" incidents, five Strangers' Bar brawls, and two assembly-floor altercations that day at UN Headquarters, so (President) Fernanda's antics hardly got top billing.Now if the defenstrations, Destructor Bunny incidents, Strangers' Bar brawls and altercations on this very floor, and the presence of a pervert like Manuelo Fernanda don't offend you, why should a little strong language? Hmm?

However, the tone of the repeal under discussion (specifically, in the clause where the "legislative effect" of resolution 58 is discussed) seems inappropriate for such a (theoretically) august body as the United Nations.Thanks for the laugh, Plutoni. :D

We've approved. :eek: Yes, we do support repeals. Sometimes. ;)

Approved, because the resolution does not actually set up a "Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures" and use of the quote "waaah, Mummy! I don't like it! waaah!"

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Meh. This will wholly ruin our entire basis for our next scheduled repeal of "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers," based on duplication to the SPCC Regulation Act. Approved, but if this fails don't be suprised to see us with a little grin.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Dr. Hodz puts a red baseball cap on backwards and puts on several necklaces with big fake gold medallions on them.

"All y'alls best approve, 'cause afta all, the co-author dun said so!"

Meh. This will wholly ruin our entire basis for our next scheduled repeal of "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers," based on duplication to the SPCC Regulation Act. Approved, but if this fails don't be suprised to see us with a little grin.You needn't worry yourself over that little snag, for you are quite right that Ban Single Hulled Tankers duplicates SPCC Regulation Act: It whines incoherently about oil spills yet does absolutely nothing to address them. Therefore, if this is repealed, Ban Single Hulled Tankers could still be taken out, on identical grounds.

Looks good! You have my support and approval for this repeal. :)

New Leicestershire fully supports this repeal effort and will support future attempts to repeal the equally worthless "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers".

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

We too would approve this repeal were we a delegate, and must therefore content ourselves with encouraging others. We particularly like the thought of having:

Rejecting the notion that there is any point maintaining a resolution whose entire substance has all the legislative effect of a small child whining "waaah, Mummy! I don't like it! waaah!",

permanantly written into the legislation books; we can think of many allegedly serious proposals of recent times that would be utterly destroyed by it.:D

Is that so? Well then, allow me to quote a report of some recent transpirings in this "august" body: *etc.*Heh. Was wondering what happened to that post. Damn moderator queue! :mad:

Now if the defenstrations, Destructor Bunny incidents, Strangers' Bar brawls and altercations on this very floor, and the presence of a pervert like Manuelo Fernanda don't offend you, why should a little strong language? Hmm?They do bother me, but I doubt my short tenure gives me enough clout to do anything about them without becoming one of their victims.

The resolution, on the other hand, I can do something about. Or nothing, as it were.

And on a completely unrelated note, a crisis in my home country will pull me away from my work for two weeks. How devastatingly unfortunate.

-the Plutonian ambassador (whose tiny colony is too small to send a replacement)

Well, that's a shame. The UN is festering snakepit of senseless violence, unfettered corruption, obscene exhibitionism and gnomish sabotage. Repealing crap is the only good thing we got going for us, and you do this body a profound disservice by refusing even that. :p

Good luck to you.

The UN is festering snakepit of senseless violence, unfettered corruption, obscene exhibitionism and gnomish sabotage.

And we love it so.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Submission (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=spcc) bump. Approve, you lazy dogs!! :D

Another bump -- nearly three-fourths of the way there with two days left! Thanks to all who have approved so far.

Quorumed.

We may as well use this thread as the official topic; I'll try to edit a FAQ or something into the first post.

Wholly voted against. This repeal brings up not much more than the insults it flings at the original proposal submitter, which in itself would warrant hesitation from me. I would very much not like to see a resolution, no matter how ineffective it may be, be repealed by nothing more than childish name-calling.

However, if the repeal was more focused on the actual resolution as opposed to how much of a crybaby the proposal submitter is, I would definitely consider it. Good to see that it's being mainly voted against as of now. Should prove to be an interesting race, however.

This repeal brings up not much more than the insults it flings at the original proposal submitter,...However, if the repeal was more focused on the actual resolution as opposed to how much of a crybaby the proposal submitter is...Although we can see where one would interpret portions of the repeal argument as aimed at the original resolution's author, we believe a more careful analysis will find that the colorful vituperation targets the resolution and its effect themselves.
Recognising that SPCC Regulation Act in no way:
- or in fact accomplishes anything ... other than to vaguely waffle on in a trite march of irrelevancies...

...a resolution whose entire substance has all the legislative effect of a small child whining "waaah
We've taken the liberty to highlight subject-verb and object relationships.

In addition, applying our Legislation Analyzer with its patented Snark-o-meter(TM), we find the text of the repeal argument to be 20% neutral statements, 50% critical analysis of the original proposal, and 30% snark. Given the propensity of recent repeal proposals to outright lie about the resolution they attempt to repeal, we're quite satisfied with the cogent arguments in this one.

Rubina has cast an early vote FOR the repeal.


Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

There is no point actually being for this law because all of our subjects are just going to go at us and what's the point of that. It's also a lot more environmentally friendly not to do that as well

Meh.
Much worse legislation was passed.
;)

I'm only joking. Kinda.

I'm voting FOR.

Respectfully,
The Honorable Michael Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the UN
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

How dare you vote such "blatant rudeness" into law? :rolleyes:

The Federal Republic votes FOR, as if there were any question.

~Cdr. Chiang

Oh how we love repeals. My boss told me to vote FOR.

Cookesland is voting FOR

Fiore Acquerello
Deputy UN Ambassador

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp).

It is with regret that our nation must vote against this repeal. We do agree with the drafters that the original resolution is quite useless and ought to be repealed, but we just can't bring ourselves to support such rude language, however seemingly well-deserved.

I am voting to repeal this resolution

President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant

Question!

Do any of these resolutions matter to our nations? Do they really effect the growth of our population and economy? Or are they just for fun?

BTW I tried to make a proposal for resolution and it was removed because I said something like what this resoluation said, "Rejecting the notion that there is any point maintaining a resolution whose entire substance has all the legislative effect of a small child whining "waaah, Mummy! I don't like it! waaah!","

I suppose contradictions happen even on here just like in real life... lol Either that or it is extremely political in which case once again just like real life...lollol

Let me guess someone will quote me here and say some BS that I could care less about. I am just makin a point... Anyone affended by it, should just grow up...lol

The Sovereign Principality supports this resolution, only for the sole fact that the resolution being repealed violates the rules of this...august...body.

...that I and I've always wanted a law in the books with the word "Mummy" in it.

Our vote in no way endorses the content of this resolution, or its intent & purposes.

This is the first moderately informal resolution that Jey has voted for. At least it has a good effect.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Question!

Do any of these resolutions matter to our nations? Do they really effect the growth of our population and economy? Or are they just for fun?Population, no. Economic/personal/political freedoms stats, yes. Economy, indirectly.

BTW I tried to make a proposal for resolution and it was removed because I said something like what this resoluation said, "Rejecting the notion that there is any point maintaining a resolution whose entire substance has all the legislative effect of a small child whining "waaah, Mummy! I don't like it! waaah!","

I suppose contradictions happen even on here just like in real life... lol Either that or it is extremely political in which case once again just like real life...lollol

Let me guess someone will quote me here and say some BS that I could care less about. I am just makin a point... Anyone affended by it, should just grow up...lolJoke proposals with no other purpose than the author trying to prove he's funny ("Reduce Global Warming" - Description: "Anyone who actually liked that stupid "Day After Tomorrow" movie shall be taken out and shot.") are out; mods tend to look the other way when a serious proposal occasionally has one or two silly remarks. Hack (I think) actually voiced his approval for Dashanzi's Common Sense Act II repeal.

"Rejecting the notion that there is any point maintaining a resolution whose entire substance has all the legislative effect of a small child whining "waaah, Mummy! I don't like it! waaah!","

It's phrasing like this that makes it impossible for me to vote against it.
(Now someone will presumably make several seal jokes.)

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

"Baah!! Double hulled tankers are far too expensive for any country to sustain, especially third world ones. What we need more resolutions on are improved GPS navigation systems and ship tracking networks. Had the Exon Valdes new where the hell they were heading, they wouldn't have ran into the reef in the first place. We should also be focused more on the piracy issue as well. Double hulled oil tankers are a waste of time and money. So all I have to say is "how much?"".

-Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad

Against.

Against wasting my time, as you have.

Against that childish poll as well.

You know, I find it amusing how many people are voting against simply for the reason of, "Waah, Mummy! I don't like the wording!"

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR the repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We much prefer formal, legal language in resolutions. We would never have written a repeal couched in these terms. Big deal.

This is one whole hell of a lot better than the repeals attempts we've seen lately that contained blatant lies and completely misrepresented the resolutions they were aimed at.

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the repeal.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I would have preferred far more snark, personally.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Very convincing :rolleyes:. You say that the UN should not be for 'annoyingly brattish screams of infantile indignation', and then in a very annoying, infantile, way you compare the resolution to a whining child. Not exactly 'genuine and effective international law', is it? To cap it off you add a very annoying and infantile poll to this discussion. Your resolution might have had some point, but thanks to your hypocrisy you have lost my vote.

As has been pointed out, the smugly immature tone of this condemnation of a resolution for being "thoroughly terrible" is an exercise in towering irony. While mildly amusing on these grounds, having this language on the books is rather more grating than that of the original resolution.

This, plus we are more interested in a considered approach to each individual resolution than part of a crusade or larger agenda (to wit, the repeal author nation's name of "Surly the Repealinator").

Dolfor, as the delegate for The Soviet Alliance, votes AGAINST this repeal resolution. (Likely in a futile gesture, given the passage rate of all proposed UN resolutions that come up for vote -- it seems far easier to pass a repeal against a resolution than to defeat that resolution in the first place.)

Alright, a little note about the language: if it bothers you, only try to remember, THIS IS A FUCKING GAME. So lighten up. We're allowed to be a little silly; perchance have you read any of the Daily Issues? Or are you just so ironically challenged that you fail to see the humor behind such choices as legalizing cannibalism and making skateboarding mandatory? :p

OK, done ranting. Almost:

(Likely in a futile gesture, given the passage rate of all proposed UN resolutions that come up for vote -- it seems far easier to pass a repeal against a resolution than to defeat that resolution in the first place.)I've written five resolutions that didn't pass; you have no idea what you're talking about.

Against.

Not that my good friend Ausserland doesn't have a point, I just don't care for giving the author a break by allowing them to enshrine a repeal with immature, bothersome and puerile language. A frequent hazard in this chamber, I might add.

~S

I've written five resolutions that didn't pass; you have no idea what you're talking about.

No, it's just that nobody likes your resolutions, as some of them do almost nothing.

It's simple really.


President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant

They must like this one, else it wouldn't be passing so handily.

Now, are there any arguments to be heard about the repeal argument itself? Any at all?

Now, are there any arguments to be heard about the repeal argument itself? Any at all?
The repeal argument would have been more effective if you had slipped the terms "apoplectic with rage" or "howling with God's own fury" in there somewhere. I think that would have really driven the point home. Otherwise, I like it and New Leicestershire has voted For.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Speaking of which, I wonder whether some of this repeal's opponents were so indignant about "immature, bothersome and puerile" language when Repeal "Common Sense Act II" was proposed?

Oh, wait. I already have my answer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12375485&postcount=44).

My predecessor here had an issue with impolite language; thankfully, I don't. And if the "impolite" language used in this repeal is the reason some of you are voting against it, then apparently, you place more importance on the tone used by the author, or the words used, and less importance on what the legislation in question (both the original and the repeal) actually do. If that is the case, I have a hard time taking your objections seriously, especially since the original resolution, its abundance of hectoring words notwithstanding, accomplishes less than an eyedropper of water in the desert.

Altanar is voting for.

- Jinella Agaranth, UCMA Ambassador

They must like this one, else it wouldn't be passing so handily.


Hmm...funny, I don't see your name ANYWHERE on that repeal......


President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant

You didn't see my name ANYWHERE on that last UN proposal, did you? You may even notice this nation's not even in the UN, yet its proposals still keep making quorum! Hmm. I wonder how that is accomplished? ...

Now can we please get back on-topic? Valid arguments against this repeal; I still haven't heard one.

And what is the point? Why do you people take this so seriously?! Oi vey...

And what is the point? Why do you people take this so seriously?! Oi vey...
I agree Great Orm, there are some rather highly strung people here, who just need to relax and not get so angry. If playing NationStates can drive someone to swear repeatedly in messages then they can't really be getting the most out of the enterprise.

Regarding the resolution, I don't like the informality of the composition and think that the original resolution was quite harmless and not worth the effort of repealing it. Thus I am indifferent and will not bother to vote.

It just shows that after a while once there are resolutions in place on the bog standard issues like slavery, AIDS, global warming, dunking biscuits etc. then only the boring stuff is left...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The Putzi Ambassador slumbers in her chair as the air-conditioning working on overdrive attempts to suck all the hot air out of the UN.

Def. voting to repeal this one. All a double-hull does is increase manufacuring costs. If your going fast enough, the hull will split either way. My $0.02.

Regardless of whether this repeal goes forward or not, we really all ought to be using nicer language, don't you think? The Cute One knows, the level of debate in these halls has gone way down. It's enough to make one suggest a "time out" corner for some of the more...boisterous...representatives here.

None of you are helping matters. I really don't understand why the piddling amount of foul language used in this debate is in any way unique from the foul language used in any other, nor do I understand why a routine floor debate has degenerated into a contest to see who can be the most indignant. My understanding of the rules is that swearing is not necessarily disallowed; however, trolling, flaming, abuse of other players, and -- these last two are especially important -- spamming and threadjacking are. If you have a problem with the way anyone is speaking here, take it to Moderation. We have veered way off course with this whole discussion on decorum, and if it continues, as OP I will request moderator intervention.

Thank you.

Hullo there Ladies and Gentlemen, Delegates of the August Body,

As far as I can tell the only action taken by the SPCC act originally was contained in this sentance from the said act and the rest can be considered as padding:

"We must unite to endorse the use of double-hulled pipelines and storage/transport vehicles worldwide."

The overlap with Resolution #11, Ban Single-Hulled Tankers is therefore only present regarding tankers, leaving the remainder of the petrochemicals industry out. This means that the only actual action of SPCC was to endorse the use of double-hulled pipelines and storage/transport vehicles throughout the rest of the oil industry which can't be a bad thing and doesn't require nations to spend money on doing so if they don't wish to.

Oil pollution from pipes and refineries, and fumes from burning oil, can spill across borders and so there is a potential for the issue to be international. Obviously not to the same extent of tankers at sea though where oil could wash up on a beach in any nation given the right currents.

There is an implication in SPCC that it is only about oil which does raise the question about safety in the transport of other chemicals. Putzi feels there is scope for tougher legislation here and finds it regretable that those who proposed this repeal resolution were too lazy to suggest improvements in the field of chemical transportation in addition to repealing SPCC, and instead focused on an informal and crudely worded resolution.

The fact that this resolution makes no positive contributions (and merely repeals the very mild SPCC) to the body of legistaion and is mocking and negative in outlook throughout suggests its complete unfitness to be voted into being.

After these considerations, Putzi has decided to vote AGAINST and wishes to go on record to express disapproval at the immaturity of the resolutions wording and its negative action. In conclusion this resolution is inedible and undermines the high purpose of the UN and we cannot commend it to the said August Body.

The Putzi Ambassador

My understanding of the rules is that swearing is not necessarily disallowed; however, trolling, flaming, abuse of other players,
I consider being sworn at as "abuse of another player" and who are you to go around threatening people with moderation? Come back with 2000+ posts and then your presumptuous nature won't look so out of place.

Putzi

Come back with 2000+ posts and then your presumptuous nature won't look so out of place.

Here's a thought: perhaps the small nation you are running down is actually a long-standing member of the forums. Perhaps he's better known by another name, or two, or even ten. Perhaps the mods know EXACTLY who he is, and known that his behavior, while pushing the limits, is still entirely within those limits.

You never know who or what you're talking to here. Don't make rash assumptions.

Hullo there Ladies and Gentlemen, Delegates of the August Body,

As far as I can tell the only action taken by the SPCC act originally was contained in this sentance from the said act and the rest can be considered as padding:

"We must unite to endorse the use of double-hulled pipelines and storage/transport vehicles worldwide."

The overlap with Resolution #11, Ban Single-Hulled Tankers is therefore only present regarding tankers, leaving the remainder of the petrochemicals industry out. This means that the only actual action of SPCC was to endorse the use of double-hulled pipelines and storage/transport vehicles throughout the rest of the oil industry which can't be a bad thing and doesn't require nations to spend money on doing so if they don't wish to.

Oil pollution from pipes and refineries, and fumes from burning oil, can spill across borders and so there is a potential for the issue to be international. Obviously not to the same extent of tankers at sea though where oil could wash up on a beach in any nation given the right currents.

There is an implication in SPCC that it is only about oil which does raise the question about safety in the transport of other chemicals. Putzi feels there is scope for tougher legislation here and finds it regretable that those who proposed this repeal resolution were too lazy to suggest improvements in the field of chemical transportation in addition to repealing SPCC, and instead focused on an informal and crudely worded resolution.

The fact that this resolution makes no positive contributions (and merely repeals the very mild SPCC) to the body of legistaion and is mocking and negative in outlook throughout suggests its complete unfitness to be voted into being.

After these considerations, Putzi has decided to vote AGAINST and wishes to go on record to express disapproval at the immaturity of the resolutions wording and its negative action. In conclusion this resolution is inedible and undermines the high purpose of the UN and we cannot commend it to the said August Body.

The Putzi Ambassador

Scotchpinestan agrees. The immature wording of the proposal, and furthermore the immature introduction to this discussion thread by the authoring nation, combine to force us to vote AGAINST this resolution.

Against.

Not that my good friend Ausserland doesn't have a point, I just don't care for giving the author a break by allowing them to enshrine a repeal with immature, bothersome and puerile language. A frequent hazard in this chamber, I might add.

~SWhy am I not surpirsed?:rolleyes:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I've voted FOR option 3 in the poll, on the grounds that I've always loved the classics, and that particular argument is certainly a classic. Though so is option 5, in its way.

Ardchoille votes FOR the proposal, on the grounds that it does what a repeal is supposed to do -- gets rid of a piece of legislation -- and my nation approves of what it does. We're not at all distressed to see this legislation go.

And I vote FOR the language, too, on the grounds that I'm a known numerophobe. The NS UN's vocabulary is full of annoying "UNAaB No 520" descriptions that call nothing to mind. But this is surely set to go down as the "Waaah!" reso, which means I'll be able to remember it without looking it up. Yay!

-- Dicey Reilly,
wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille

There is an implication in SPCC that it is only about oil which does raise the question about safety in the transport of other chemicals. Putzi feels there is scope for tougher legislation here and finds it regretable that those who proposed this repeal resolution were too lazy to suggest improvements in the field of chemical transportation in addition to repealing SPCC, and instead focused on an informal and crudely worded resolution.

The fact that this resolution makes no positive contributions (and merely repeals the very mild SPCC) to the body of legistaion and is mocking and negative in outlook throughout suggests its complete unfitness to be voted into being.

The Putzi Ambassador

The representative is apparently unaware that attempting to make new law in a repeal is a violation of the Rules for UN Proposals. If the author had attempted to make "positive contributions", the proposal would have been deleted for violation of the rules.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

There is an implication in SPCC that it is only about oil which does raise the question about safety in the transport of other chemicals. Putzi feels there is scope for tougher legislation here

*Ahem*
Do you mean like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973211&postcount=184)?

*Ahem*
Do you mean like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973211&postcount=184)?
We admit that we hadn't read that one, but even so I still feel tougher action would not hurt for the most dangerous transported chemicals and endorsing double hulled transport for such chemicals is still sensible in our opinion.

Putzi

I find it odd that, in an organization known for throwing people out windows, there is such a problem with "unprofessional language". Besides, it's not as if our national laws (AKA issues) are any more "professional".

As for the repeal itself, we haven't yet decided, since it's not one of our "hot button" issues.

Larry Libbowizz, UN rep for South Romanar.

I vote ahgainst it on the fact that it has no teeth.

It also violates the "No mentioning IRL places" rule multiple times.

Scotchpinestan agrees. The immature wording of the proposal, and furthermore the immature introduction to this discussion thread by the authoring nation, combine to force us to vote AGAINST this resolution.

This isn't a resolution, it's a REPEAL

Sen Sulla sits at his desk happily humming the Marine Corps Hymn, while field stripping and cleaning his Colt 1911a. He even looks fully recovered from whatever unwholesome habit caused his little "incident" with the spinach dip earlier this week. He looks up from his labors, and pauses briefly to say,

"Congrats to ol' Surly and the others responcible for getting this lovely repeal to vote. THis repeal is a priceless piece of legislation that should be held up as the new standard to which all other legislation should be held to. Its very entertaining reading, not like some of the dreadful pieces ofBopkiss usually brought before this august body. Furthermore it is unambiguous. Even a clueless screwhead can understand the purpose. The Palentine glady votes For the repeal."

then the good Senator returns to cleaning his pistol while softy singing...
"From the haaaaaaallllls of Montezuuuuummmmmmaaaaa..."

This isn't a resolution, it's a REPEALOriginally Posted by The United Nations

The Resolution At Vote

The following resolution is being debated by the UN. If it passes, it will immediately take effect in all UN member nations.

Repeal "SPCC Regulation Act"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

I agree with the repeal, but are we somehow missing the point? The reason that the origianal legeslation was put forward was to try to prevent the threat of oil spillage. The legeslation may have been pointless, but I take it that the issue behind it is still important. Instead of concentrating our efforts on removing unnecessary legeslation, wouldn't we be better off working out an effective way of acting on the problem.
Forgive me if this was covered earlier, as I have only just looked at this forum and don't have time to look through everything that's been said in detail.

Regarding the resolution, I don't like the informality of the composition and think that the original resolution was quite harmless and not worth the effort of repealing it.
We admit that we hadn't read that one, but even so I still feel tougher action would not hurt for the most dangerous transported chemicals and endorsing double hulled transport for such chemicals is still sensible in our opinion.The original resolution may be ineffective, but it's certainly not harmless. It's ability to do nothing while preventing any effective regulation of pipelines is egregious. We find your flip-floppery between wanting legislation with teeth and extolling the virtues of an impotent piece of do-goodery lacking in reason.

In conclusion this resolution is inedible and undermines the high purpose of the UNWe suppose taste is a matter of personal... uhm... taste. And granted we prefer a chocolate resolution when we can get one to this tart lemony, poppy-seed confection. But inedible? Methinks not, given the mastication seen on the Assembly floor.

I vote ahgainst it on the fact that it has no teeth.

It also violates the "No mentioning IRL places" rule multiple times.Does the Ambassador from South Lorenya perhaps mean they support the repeal at vote because the resolution to be repealed "has no teeth"? It all gets a bit confusing somehow, especially when the morning coffee is three-quarters Bailey's and one-quarter dregs. Care for a cuppa?

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Freakin ridiculous.


M. Diegaus III

Whether or not the resolution this one proposes to repeal, should be repealed; we do not believe the undiplomatic choice of language in this proposal satisfies the requirements for a resolution of the NSUN.

This really is getting old. As if we didn't already know the proposal contained rough language. You're not proving any of the resolution's faults; you're only proving that you have no sense of humor. A pity. And there hasn't been raised a single sensible objection yet. If the resolution is really that good, then we shouldn't at all be surprised with the margin it's getting on the floor.

My apologies to the sponsor for not consulting with him before posting with him, but I don't have much time to be online at the moment (which is also the reason I doubt I'll have much of an opportunity to respond to any replies to this). I believe it is reasonably public knowledge that I wrote this repeal - it does, you know, say so in the OP and all - and so I feel I should say at least something in its defence. First, though, I wanted to ask a question of those whining about the language and tone. In the following exchange, which is the more offensive?

"I'm against domestic violence, but obviously there's nothing wrong with slapping her about a bit so long as it's to keep her in line."
"Eat shit and die, you fucking wanker."

The second has more naughty words.

What is wrong with strong words, so long as they are directed against a suitable target? SPCC Regulation Act is not a resolution, it's an essay: and it's not even a very good essay. When it came to vote, some of the nations campaigning against it were Rehochipe, _Myopia_ and Ecopoeia. That sound like a gung-ho bunch of right-wing zealots? Or does it sound like distinctly lefty sorts who normally supported environmental legislation, but were concerned about legislation that didn't do anything, and that by doing nothing was actually worse than nothing? With SPCC Regulation Act, there is a greater possibility effective legislation on this subject won't be passed: some may assume it already has been, and possibly the contradiction/duplication rules would come into play (although there is nothing to contradict or duplicate, that was also true of Elimination of Bio Weapons).

I would challenge the opposition to come up with a single actual provision of SPCC Regulation Act, but as I say, I don't have time to waste, and doing so would indeed be a waste, given there are none. The closest we come is "We must unite to endorse the use of double-hulled pipelines and storage/transport vehicles worldwide". Well whoop-dee-fucking-doo! I'm sure that endorsement is really going to change a great deal. "Hey, Mr Oil Company Exec, why are you still using single hulls? Didn't you hear the UN endorsed double hulls? It didn't actually ban single hulls or anything, but still..." (Except, it did, in Ban Single-Hulled Tankers: SPCC Regulation Act is meant to be an updated extension, but is actually less effective. It'd be like updating and extending the M-16 with the musket.)

That's why SPCC Regulation Act should be tanked. Why with this repeal: well, first, because it's here. Perhaps you'd have liked it to adopt a more stilted format, and perhaps that's due to extreme stick-in-your-ass issues, but where were all these helpful suggestions during drafting? In the nearly two weeks this was available, not one person made a constructive addition. That doesn't remove your right to complain now, but it puts it into perspective a little. Maybe next time a draft is presented, you'll be more willing to do so? Yeah, because I really see that happening.

As to the idea that this repeal is "insulting", I can only say: some things are worth insulting. That includes resolutions that do nothing, that includes messy sub-essays that spew barely literate ramblings, that includes arrogantly assuming that the UN need only wave its magic wand of endorsement instead of thinking out some actual policies to tackle a problem...and that does not include the author. I'm sure they were a very nice person. Our side doesn't need to attack the person to attack the argument.

I suppose all my argument really boils down to is this: aren't there better things to do than vote against this? There are many injustices in the world, some big, some small, many things worth getting het up about: a couple of sharp clauses in a repeal of a worthless resolution would not make my list of "Things I Need Knot My Underpants Over Today".

In conclusion, to quote Saddam Hussein, "Hey, buddy...relax!"

~Gruenberg

The original resolution may be ineffective, but it's certainly not harmless. It's ability to do nothing while preventing any effective regulation of pipelines is egregious. We find your flip-floppery between wanting legislation with teeth and extolling the virtues of an impotent piece of do-goodery lacking in reason.

Putzi is no flip-flop and hardly even a clog - we were merely saying the original resolution was harmless and so the effort of a repeal is unneccesary, instead superceding it with stronger legislation is the way forward in our view.

We suppose taste is a matter of personal... uhm... taste. And granted we prefer a chocolate resolution when we can get one to this tart lemony, poppy-seed confection. But inedible? Methinks not, given the mastication seen on the Assembly floor.

Putzi used the word 'inedible' as an alternative to 'unpalatable' which would have raised no eyebrows we suspect.

The Putzi Ambassadorin

In conclusion, to quote Saddam Hussein, "Hey, buddy...relax!"



The delegate from The Sacred Orb agrees most heartily with this statement.It is after all only a game and none of this has any bearing on real life. Any of those who think it does might need to call their doctor and schedule some psychiatric testing.

The second is to us Gruenberg. It is our opinion that neither your resolution nor your posting is written to a suitable standard to merit its presence before this august body.

Slovenly standards are just that...slovenly. That is reason enough to rail against them...

Having heard from the author of this repeal, we are definitely voting AGAINST, not that it will make any difference of course!

Putzi

Putzi is no flip-flop and hardly even a clog - we were merely saying the original resolution was harmless and so the effort of a repeal is unneccesary, instead superceding it with stronger legislation is the way forward in our view.

That's not legal. A resolution must be repealed before it can be replaced or superceded.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Okay, to clarify...

I oppose the original resolution, which has no teeth and (unless it came before the rules change) never should have made it to the floor without being deleted in the first place. Therefore, I support the repeal.

The second is to us Gruenberg. It is our opinion that neither your resolution nor your posting is written to a suitable standard to merit its presence before this august body.

Slovenly standards are just that...slovenly. That is reason enough to rail against them...

Having heard from the author of this repeal, we are definitely voting AGAINST, not that it will make any difference of course!

Putzi
Do you have anything to say about the actual arguments used in the repeal? Do you have anything to say in defense of "SPCC Regulation Act"? Or do you just troll and bait?

I apologize in advance for the lenght of this post, since I personally think its unnessescary. If you don't feel like reading my long points, just jump to the small little paragraph at the very bottom and you'll get my drift. But I feel I have to say the big long stuff because some people need to hear reasons behind things. so, my points:

-The original legislation is useless, and would be repealed if it were found anywhere in reality. It has nothing to do with someone's feelings being hurt by having their proposed law removed, its just making things efficient and preventing future time wasting.
-The wording of the repeal is rude, and the writer did intend it to be so. That's the writer's opinion on the matter. However, you aren't voting on the author's choice of words, you're voting on what those words eventually accomplish: repealing. So just yes if you want to repeal, no if you dont. Not "yes, I think that he is making fun of them enough that I will vote" or "no, I think he should be respectful of others." After all, how often have you met a really respectful polotician?
-According to the forum pole, more people want to see a replacment for the act than want to see it remain. perhaps those people who are debating this issue so forcefully might want to contact the original writer of the legislation, and ask them if they'd be interested in creating a replacment that would actually have a global effect.

Now that my points are out, I say this: If you think the act does nothing, repeal it. If you don't like the author of the repeal, don't be friends with them. If you feel bad for the author of the original legislation, give them a hand in making something better.

stop wasting this time on arguing a lost cause, and start spending it on making those changes that you keep bringing up.

What is wrong with strong words, so long as they are directed against a suitable target? SPCC Regulation Act is not a resolution, it's an essay: and it's not even a very good essay. When it came to vote, some of the nations campaigning against it were Rehochipe, _Myopia_ and Ecopoeia. That sound like a gung-ho bunch of right-wing zealots? Or does it sound like distinctly lefty sorts who normally supported environmental legislation, but were concerned about legislation that didn't do anything, and that by doing nothing was actually worse than nothing? With SPCC Regulation Act, there is a greater possibility effective legislation on this subject won't be passed: some may assume it already has been, and possibly the contradiction/duplication rules would come into play (although there is nothing to contradict or duplicate, that was also true of Elimination of Bio Weapons).


We're pleased that, in his remarks, the distinguished representative of Gruenberg acknowledged the existence of what we've termed "the psychological blocker." Based on our experience working with potential authors of resolutions, we are convinced that the mere existence of bad legislation on a subject does inhibit the creation of better -- even if the existing resolution would not technically be a blocker.

NSUN Resolution #58 richly deserves to be stricken from the books. This repeal will do just that, and we continue to support it 100%.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

The second is to us Gruenberg. It is our opinion that neither your resolution

Putzi

OOC: Whoa! Hold your horses there Putzi. This resolution isn't by Gruenberg, it's by Surly. And while Surly is a puppet nation, it's not one of Gruen's puppets.

Not to be contradictory, but Gruen did write this proposal: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12977256&postcount=77

IC:
Horgen Dush, amid a mass of papers, stands. No hush across the floor occurs--understandable, since he is quite a minor figure in the UN--but he begins to speak anyhow.
Horgen: I have looked over the text of the two resolutions mentioned (#11 and #58), as well as the repeal itself. I agree that #58 is an extension upon #11--it even copies a phrase from #11, word for word; however, I disagree with how the repealling party has executed this. As I see it, because of the extension, both should be repealled, and the intentions bundled into one all-encompassing resolution, seeing as the intentions of both resolutions are very important environmentally. If, Representative for Surly, this is, in fact, your intention, then I stand corrected, at which point I would insist on seeing a replacement resolution. However, until such time, I shall abstain from voting on the repeal.

OOC:
I'm also a little concerned about the tone of the repeal, especially in paragraphs 4 and 5. I know you were bored when it was written, but even then, a little ounce of maturity in writing, please? (I'm not a mod, yes, so my word is moot in such a matter.) You begin to sound like that very child you talk about.
But still, my abstaination(?) stays for now.

It is our opinion that neither your resolution nor your posting is written to a suitable standard to merit its presence before this august body.

This would be where I point out that you aren't the one who sets those standards.

If you want standards, lead by example. So far, I'm not impressed with your presentation either.

This would be where I point out that you aren't the one who sets those standards.

If you want standards, lead by example.

Since there are no "official" standards, we as member nations do set the standards by our actions. Putzi is simply stating their action, on the grounds of its belief that proposals should be written in a manner at least resembling formal English.


In the nearly two weeks this was available, not one person made a constructive addition.

((OOC: I could be way off here, but I suspect the vast majority of people who read this draft never expected it would make it to quorum. They probably dismissed it out of hand due to the language; I know I did. Since any resolution that makes quorum will likely pass, regardless of merit (see the newly-passed Accessible Family Planning resolution), perhaps fewer nations will take this issue for granted in the future.))

Bit irrelevant to the resolution but anyone else find it interesting that this resolution was submitted but "The Anti-UN Conspiracy of Surely the Repealinator" That belongs to a region that is "A haven for megalomaniacal rulers plotting to terrorize the international community?" Thats from the region's actual factbook entry by the way.

Our government believes that legislation should be effective and uphold the highest standards. We feel the repeal is appropriate, however, cannot support legislation that uses taunting as a means of supporting a view. We agree that this language/tone 'on the books' further diminishes the reputation of this 'august body'. Therefore, we respectfully abstain.

Frege Gott

PS Hopefully, the comments supplied by others reflecting this view will encourage all proposal writers to 'set standards' that can keep discussions to the issues in the future....

Bit irrelevant to the resolution but anyone else find it interesting that this resolution was submitted but "The Anti-UN Conspiracy of Surely the Repealinator" That belongs to a region that is "A haven for megalomaniacal rulers plotting to terrorize the international community?" Thats from the region's actual factbook entry by the way.You're exactly right! How did I not see this before? Clearly this is a evil diabolical scheme to trick us into repealing a useless resolution. We cannot let this happen! I say we get together and round up a posse to invade this den of heathen interlopers to let them know that repealing our laws, making up loopholes and shooting our gnomes is not to be tolerated!!

Who's with me?? :upyours:

Who's with me?? :upyours:
We'll go!

WAR NAO!!!









Oh wait....we're already there.

Since any resolution that makes quorum will likely pass

Oh? Why don't you check out the The (Un)Official United Nations Timeline™ (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline)? (Hint: Look for the ones that say "Failed".)

Oh? Why don't you check out the The (Un)Official United Nations Timeline™ (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline)? (Hint: Look for the ones that say "Failed".)Did you even notice that a lot of these failed proposals come from the region of ... dun dun dun!! -- ANTARCTIC OASIS??!! Not only are they mercilessly repealing our resolutions, they're also fattening them for the slaughter on the UN floor! We cannot allow this ROUGE region to inflict such terrible suffering on innocent UN proposals!!!:

WAR NAO!!!We will plunder their women, slaughter their penguins and rape their gold!! RAWR!! http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/hg%2520%2828%29.gif

The repeal is both "brattish" and "infantile" as well as being generally worthless as a UN document.

I strongly urge everyone to vote AGAINST.

Putzi we were merely saying the original resolution was harmless and so the effort of a repeal is unneccesary, instead superceding it with stronger legislation is the way forward in our view.
And in this festering snakepit that is the General Assembly, you're entitled to express your views... as we are free to have the opinion that you're a loony--at least in respect to this. ;)

Let's put it in perspective, shall we? I'm the queen of letting alone any resolution that's doing even half the job it's supposed to do, and it's an odd day in the neighborhood when Rubinans can't find anything good to say about an environmental resolution. Surly himself can vouch for that.

"SPCC Regulation Act" is codswallop. It stinks to the heavens. It deserves every bit of calumny the author heaped upon it. Leetha smiles broadly in the direction of Surly. It deserves a well-structured replacement. *ahem* My apologies... an inside joke.

There will be dancing and drinking and sexual congress when this repeal passes. And that's just in the Rubinan offices. Oh wait, we've forgotten once again to file for a UN office. Well, damn.


Leetha Talone
Still UN Ambassador despite the stuffed shirts on the Central Committee
Rubina

generally worthless as a UN document.Please; explain exactly how this Repeal is "worthless".

We will plunder their women, slaughter their penguins and rape their gold!! RAWR!! http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/hg%2520%2828%29.gif

I me bit fullsz now. Perhapssz, Kennyitesz and Oasiansz for dinnersz, yessz? With ketchupssz. :9

well i think it should be repealed but thats my opinion

We're abstaining for now, seeing as this is a vast ACCELite conspiracy. As well as part of the hidden agenda of the Antarctican Clique.

Wait...

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Not to be contradictory, but Gruen did write this proposal: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12977256&postcount=77
OOC: I stand corrected.
Our government believes that legislation should be effective and uphold the highest standards. We feel the repeal is appropriate, however, cannot support legislation that uses taunting as a means of supporting a view. We agree that this language/tone 'on the books' further diminishes the reputation of this 'august body'. Therefore, we respectfully abstain.

Frege Gott

PS Hopefully, the comments supplied by others reflecting this view will encourage all proposal writers to 'set standards' that can keep discussions to the issues in the future....

All right, that's it! The next person who complains about the language used in this repeal gets defenestrated! And I don't mean through an open window, I don't even mean through a closed window! Building Management be damned, I'm throwing them through the frakking WALL! Who's with me?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

All right, that's it! The next person who complains about the language used in this repeal gets defenestrated! And I don't mean through an open window, I don't even mean through a closed window! Building Management be damned, I'm throwing them through the frakking WALL! Who's with me?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
*Hands Bob Flibble the keys to the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2™*

Fire at will.

*Hands Bob Flibble the keys to the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2™*

Fire at will.


I wish to participate as well.

~Dr. Hodz

Y'know, I'm ready to defenestrate as well.
Sure, the language isn't like other proposals, but it does get the point across.

M. Diegaus III

I just can not find it within myself to vote for a Resolution, Repeal or Not, which includes the phrase "small child whining "waaah, Mummy! I don't like it! waaah!", "

Therefore ~ Mikeswill's vote against Repeal "SPCC Regulation Act" has been noted.

^^ Looks like you got your first target, Don Flibble -- posting as if on cue! Amazing!

Blunt honesty in repeals. I like it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

... where were all these helpful suggestions during drafting?A little something we've been cooking up in ACCEL (mostly because we're bored and got nothing else to do), submitted for a test run:I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my personal case, the word "submitted" implied to me that it was already far past the chance to edit. I did not understand to what you referred to as a "test run", and am still uncertain as to what it meant. (Submission without a telegram campaign?) Only my relative unfamiliarity with United Nations terminology can serve as a defense in this case, but it seems as if many nations equally or less familiar with proceedings have shared similar objections to my own.
Maybe next time a draft is presented, you'll be more willing to do so?Yes, if clearer language is used in the original post, such as "constructive additions are welcome". For better or worse, I believed that the draft as submitted was untouchable.

Regardless of how members of this building conduct themselves, the United Nations has developed a standard of resolutions: a standard that has certainly evolved, but at this given time seems to exclude the repeal up for vote. The current vote count implies that a show of support for the content, if nothing else, of the resolution is nearly superfluous. I therefore abstain.

-the Plutonian ambassador

I just can not find it within myself to vote for a Resolution, Repeal or Not, which includes the phrase "small child whining "waaah, Mummy! I don't like it! waaah!", "

Therefore ~ Mikeswill's vote against Repeal "SPCC Regulation Act" has been noted.

Dr. Hodz picks up the ambassador from Mikeswill and hurls him out a window.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my personal case, the word "submitted" implied to me that it was already far past the chance to edit. I did not understand to what you referred to as a "test run", and am still uncertain as to what it meant. (Submission without a telegram campaign?) Only my relative unfamiliarity with United Nations terminology can serve as a defense in this case, but it seems as if many nations equally or less familiar with proceedings have shared similar objections to my own.

Your surmise is correct. Submitting "for a test run" or as a "test submission" means submitting without a TG campaign, just to see how many approvals the proposal picks up that way. Some experienced proposal authors like to do that. We've never been convinced there's much use in it. Usually, in these cases, the draft is still open to change.

A word of advice if we may.... If you have strong feelings or important suggestions about a proposal, make them here, even if the proposal has already been submitted. There have been a couple of cases in which submitted proposals have been withdrawn by their authors after serious problems were pointed out in this forum.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/Yelda/mickey.jpg

Mickey Special storms into the General Assembly armed with a bong, a six-pack of Bud and with fightin' on his mind. He is accompanied by a member of the Kennyite Security Detail, who has attached herself to his leg.

"Where the hell is that dude from Putzi?"

He scans the room through bloodshot eyes, finally spotting the Putzi delegation.

"Oh HELL YEAH! Mister Special's got somethin' for ya!

He sprints across the room with a vigor and enthusiasm not usually seen in stoners, grabs the Putzi ambassador, and throws him out the nearest window.

"Awright, I'm headin' back to the bar. Who's with me? Maybe we'll go for a roadtrip in the Camaro later, I got a Ronnie James Dio tape that Kicks Ass!

OOC: I stand corrected.


All right, that's it! The next person who complains about the language used in this repeal gets defenestrated! And I don't mean through an open window, I don't even mean through a closed window! Building Management be damned, I'm throwing them through the frakking WALL! Who's with me?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

With all due respect, Mr. Flibble, such an action would not technically be a defenestration.

Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambbasador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

With all due respect, Mr. Flibble, such an action would not technically be a defenestration.

Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambbasador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

That may be true, but it'll hurt more.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Voting against, not funny enough. Crying references are horribly overused and haven't been funny for years. Resubmit with more defenestration jokes and fewer crybaby jokes and we might support, given that Resolution #58 is pathetically stupid and I'm fairly sure that old dude Evif voted against it. And it's going to pass anyway, so it's not like our vote matters - we might as well use it to stand by our humor values or something.
Also, the proper fate of small children that cry is to be sacrificed to [viol.....

The image vanishes in mid-word, as if somebody had cut off the transmission.

Holographic Projection of Darren Funkel
Teenage Nephew of the Goobergunchian President

Brig Diegaus has been locked in his office, on order of the Foreign Minister, for threatening to defenestrate other ambassadors. We'll unlock him when he's done with his "time-out".

(Although we agree with him wholeheartedly.)

Respectfully,
Jesse Carmichael, Capt, GIMC
Commanding Officer, Genoshan UN Security Detail
Genoshan Isles Marine Corps

Brig Diegaus has been locked in his office, on order of the Foreign Minister, for threatening to defenestrate other ambassadors. We'll unlock him when he's done with his "time-out".

(Although we agree with him wholeheartedly.)

Respectfully,
Jesse Carmichael, Capt, GIMC
Commanding Officer, Genoshan UN Security Detail
Genoshan Isles Marine Corps

Let him out, lest I call in the First Armoured Division for an excursion into your office.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Voting against, not funny enough. Crying references are horribly overused and haven't been funny for years. Resubmit with more defenestration jokes and fewer crybaby jokes and we might support, given that Resolution #58 is pathetically stupid and I'm fairly sure that old dude Evif voted against it. And it's going to pass anyway, so it's not like our vote matters - we might as well use it to stand by our humor values or something.So, you're voting against on the grounds that there aren't enough defenestration jokes in the NSUN?! ... I'm sorry, I'm only wondering where the hell you could have been this past, I don't know, year. Besides, defenestration jokes don't really illustrate why the proposal sucks very well:

Convinced that this resolution is fundamentally useless and that all those who disagree ought to be stabbed, shot, strangled, suffocated, bludgeoned and defenestrated ...Hmm ... maybe, but the defenestration bit doesn't really contribute much to the actual argument; it's just sort of piling it on. Stabbing, shooting, strangling, suffocating and bludgeoning opponents alone should be sufficient to silence them.

How about this?:

Regretting that reading this resolution is like a season in hell, and it's all we can do to keep from screaming and ripping out our hair and preventing our eyes from bleeding, and that the General Assembly on the whole must have been snorting a particularly dangerous mixture of crack and speed laced with gunpowder, or possibly taken one too many hits to the head while being defenestrated, to even think about adopting this measure ...That could work. :D

Thanks for responding.

I have to say, the great and eco-friendly nation of Rilkoniiya IS thoroughly for any resolution which promotes the protection of our environment.

However, resolution #58 indeed does nothing other than state the reasoning behind the resolution #11, banning single-hulled tankers.

It is therefore my duty to vote For this repeal in order to remove this ridiculous and pointless resolution from the concerns of the UN.

The repeal is both "brattish" and "infantile" as well as being generally worthless as a UN document.

I strongly urge everyone to vote AGAINST.

Apparantly old boy, you've never spent much time reading the text of resolutions that members of this festering snakepit...err... august Halls have already put into effect. I'd also advise you to regularly read the bokiss that gets submited for endoresment. Most of it is barely literate prose written by barely literate cretins suffering from delusions of grandeur.*SHUDDER!!!* Its enough to drive a person to stong drink. I think you fail to see the benefit of this repeal. As my esteemed colleague from Hotrodia has stated...

Blunt honesty in repeals. I like it.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
"New and improved with 50% more Barbaric Militant Machismo than Before"

Let him out, lest I call in the First Armoured Division for an excursion into your office.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

We'll let him out when we're damn good and ready to!
And when we get orders from above!

Capt. Carmichael

The resolution Repeal "SPCC Regulation Act" was passed 5,904 votes to 2,552.On behalf of Gruenberg, Omigodtheykilledkenny and ACCEL, we thank everyone who offered their support. And the legislative girly-men, too ("waah, Mummy! I don't like the language! waah!"); you were amusing.

On to our next target: Humanitarian Intervention.

How about this?:

Regretting that reading this resolution is like a season in hell, and it's all we can do to keep from screaming and ripping out our hair and preventing our eyes from bleeding, and that the General Assembly on the whole must have been snorting a particularly dangerous mixture of crack and speed laced with gunpowder, or possibly taken one too many hits to the head while being defenestrated, to even think about adopting this measure ...

That could work. :D

Thanks for responding.

LOL, I approve.