Son of SB 59 Introduced

DanM said:

I understand. My questions don't pertain to MOC's level of partnership equity relative to Green's, MOC's agreement with Green, MOC's ability to stop Green, or MOC's willingness to ruin partnership with Green. And neither do I suggest anything on those.

I simply expressed curiousity about why concessions are already in the bill, and interest in MOC's feedback, whatever it might be, on that.

Click to expand...

Maybe you'd like to ask your questions again, plainly, without insults or inflammatory assumptions or commentary. When you do, I may answer it when I have time.

I've requested (OP) this thread be locked. I'm done answering questions about legislation on OCDO. I won't be posting updates about legislation on OCDO.

Those wishing to follow our legislative announcements can do so by signing up for our email list: http://eepurl.com/hJzk-/

Those having questions (of me) or wishing to discuss our legislative happenings (with me) are free to do so on our forum, http://forums.miopencarry.org -- unless you're banned from our Forum [...]

That's all...

COMMENT EDITED BY ADMINISTRATOR to remove reference to particular poster

scot623 said:

DanM said:

your responses to me to just basically "take it up with Sen. Green" are weirdly short and curt, given that MOC itself announced they are partnering with Green.

Click to expand...

Think of the hottest chick you've ever seen . . .

Click to expand...

I understand your analogy, but I don't perceive it as a fit to what I'm trying to express. I said the bill is ok. I'm curious about the concessions, which I expressed were conceivable but questioned why not hold them back as bargaining chips, that's all. MOC (Phil) gave feedback on that, which boils down to: some reps see them as needing to be in there in order to get the bill heard. I followed up with, basically, "Ok, who are those reps because the grass-roots may be interested in talking to them and getting the language struck out or improved." Discussion hopefully continues.

scot623 said:

I can only assume the Senator wouldn't appreciate much Phil reporting the minutia of every meeting/negotiation/decision made behind closed doors. Phil tells us what he can, getting pissed at him or MOC because they can't answer every question about a bill seems a bit unfair.

Lets not forget Phil is one mistakenly leaked statement away from getting kicked to the curb, he clearly does NOT wear the pants in that "partnership".

Click to expand...

I've posted more than once before, in defense of Phil, on that point. Nothing I write nor questions I ask should be construed as not supporting Phil's discretion on when to publicize things. I understand that sometimes he can answer immediately, sometimes there may be a delay. I appreciate what you guys have to do in order to remain engaged with the reps. I'm patient.

Thou shall not question TheQ!

TheQ said:

I've requested (OP) this thread be locked. I'm done answering questions about legislation on OCDO. I won't be posting updates about legislation on OCDO.

Those wishing to follow our legislative announcements can do so by signing up for our email list: http://eepurl.com/hJzk-/

Those having questions (of me) or wishing to discuss our legislative happenings (with me) are free to do so on our forum, http://forums.miopencarry.org -- unless you're banned from our Forum (like say Mike Stilly).

That's all...

Click to expand...

TheQ said:

As silly as it sounds, many people are saying precisely that.

Click to expand...

Which "people"?