[wingspan33]

. . . So, having said all of that, I would like to make 2 friendly amendments to the motion:

1. We put our votes on hold so that we can invite Warren to participate.

2. If we do move Warren's topic, we should leave a link in the original location so it can be found. I believe that such a link "decays" with age and doesn't stay on top even when updated.

Friendly amendments should have no effect unless accepted by the original maker of a motion and also approved by everyone voting up to that point. Since Scott introduced the original motion, I think his lead on accepting or rejecting my 2 amendments is key.

What do you think Scott?

Exactly how is Free/Warren going to participate? In his first post to his own Frank Politics thread he says -

"Frank has indicated in the past his allegiance to the leftist delusion/derangement. Frank, you seem to be getting what you wanted.
It's a leftist clown show and the Nation is the gambit."

In the game of chess a gambit is where you sacrifice a piece to gain some tactical advantage. So, is Free/Warren saying that Frank (and/or his "leftist clown show") is sacrificing our Nation - to somebody?

Imagine inviting Free/Warren into a public debate about him using that kind of language - against a fellow US Hawks member. There's something about "Don't air your dirty laundry in public". Well, that's just what this would be if we open up a (public) discussion that includes Free/Warren. So, I am against both amendments. As to number 2, it is as close to doing nothing at all as you can get, IMHO.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Imagine inviting Free/Warren into a public debate about him using that kind of language - against a fellow US Hawks member. There's something about "Don't air your dirty laundry in public". Well, that's just what this would be if we open up a (public) discussion that includes Free/Warren.

I understand that moving a post to the Free Speech Zone isn't a federal case, but I'd like people to have the right to speak in their own defense as much as possible as a matter of principle.

So, I am against both amendments.

O.K. It's your motion, so the voting continues.

In this case Warren could always request a rehearing of the matter after it becomes public.

[Bill Cummings]

  Yes on subject motion.  

I   second   the motion that:

thread be removed from the Hang Gliding Politics forum and placed, in its entirety, into the Free Speech Zone.

While Hang Gliding politics is one thing, it seems those comments have drifted into National politics.

There does seem to be a lot of parallels these days, and many are wearing their opinions on the cuff, but IMO anything other than HG politics should

be restricted, AT LEAST to Free Speech Zone.

  YES  

[Bob Kuczewski]

I am actually going to vote   no   for the reasons already hinted in my earlier posts.

However, a majority has already voted yes, so as a servant of the Board, I have moved
the topic to the "Free Speech Zone", and I will add a moderator's note to the first post of that topic noting it's previous location:

Moderator's Note: This topic was moved here
      from the "Hang Gliding Politics" forum
      by a vote of the U.S. Hawks Board.

Thanks to every Board Member for your service.