To Insanity: You said..."I'm not apologizing because I don't think anybody realized you were moving posts."
You should have realized it, all you had to do was look before you accused me of censorship.
1. By making the motion every month and having it denied I was collecting and documenting evidence to take the issue to Walter Mack's court not "appeal the ruling to McCarron." I tried other ways to get the motion to the floor, I appealed the decision from the chair, Also other members made the motion.
2. I am not against Mike, I like Mike, I reported what he said and what happened at the meeting.
3. I was having a bit of fun to make a point and illustrate Bilello could have handled the motion in a number of different ways. As presiding officer he can help members formulate a motion.
4. Your facts are wrong about me...Again I like Mike, I reported what he said at the meeting. Allowing members increased access to meeting information is common sense and entirely consistent with the spirit of direct democracy and Robert's Rules of Order.
Insanity: "This is business not personal." You keep stopping me from "focusing my energy" by keeping the issue alive with all your questions. I rather members answer the RO's question:
Rich: You are correct...In the last week I have been verbally attacked, called names, bashed, insulted, falsely accused of censorship, and posting anonymously, all from people that are fans of this blog. I answered "Insanity" one more time. I have not said I support or do not support Bilello, I reported what he said at a meeting. Hopefully, It's the End of the Story.
Insanity is making a false argument in his defense of Bilello. He goes on offense because he has no defense. Saying Bilello believes in democracy is hardly reassuring, given Bilello's actions. If he knows Bilello so well, have Bilello comment and explain his actions.