Thank you for your clarifications above.
Regarding your comment about “decorum,” it seems you are insinuating that I may have deviated from respectful conduct. Asking challenging questions is part of what I do. Whenever I have presented a relatively complex topic, I have expressed my ideas and opinions respectfully.
I concede that my language in this post is direct. It is possible to be direct and non-violent. Healthy skepticism is categorically and experientially distinct from lacking decorum.
If the manner of my direct communication made certain persons feel uncomfortable, please remember that speaking directly is not wrong. It is efficient. And it is efficiency that can make persons feel uncomfortable.
The essence of non-violent communication is it’s unapologetically direct.
Please don’t make this into a false issue of tone, phrasing or diction.
Have you observed such behavior from a candidate?
Is this messaging merely preemptive, or is it an observation you are making?
If you are referring to my inquiries (over socials) about AADAO’s oversight of the election, it was and still is a genuine question. And my observation regarding your specific lack of responsiveness and availability is an issue that precedes the proposals hitting the chain last Friday. While you may feel vilified, it’s not “vilification.” I’m certainly not trying to “score points” for my “campaign.” There are legitimate questions regarding the minimal supervision that’s expected in election procedures.
Elections require oversight, ser. Even elections for the Oversight Committee, ironically –
Even in an imperfectly officiated game, one must still try to enforce the rules.