American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

General Mallory,

Since you chose to lock the topics in order to prevent my reply, I'll simply place it in a new topic. Here is my reply to your explation of your email to me.


I made no post encouraging the candidates to break the rules. I made a satiracle joke just as I have the last several elections (basicly the same joke). If you cannot see that , I pity you, as it was completly obvious. I have never actually wished to see the candidates actually insult each other, and I had faith in each of them not to actually do so. Even had they done so, I am sure it would have been done in a completely joking, entirely harmless manner. I doubt seriously that anyone else on the web site took what I had to say in that post anymore seriously than when I suggested flogging Pat. I thought this club was supposed to be fun. I guess there is a rule against making obvious jokes.

In the future, you should not "explain the rules to us", for there is another course that should be taken. IF the rules actually forbid questioning of the candidates, then instead they should be changed to allow it. Without questions for the candidates, and debate among them, the election system will be virtually worthless, as the information the electorate needs in order to make an informed choice will be stifled. Of course , I understand, judging by the existing rules you "quote" that may be exactly what you want.

As for your statement that you had not involved the rest of the cabinet, well that can be taken two ways by the recipient of such a letter. The first possibility is as a reassurance from you to me. Given the state of the relationship between ourselves, and the fact that I cannot ever recall having recieved anything at all from you that could remotely be called cordial, this is extremely unlikely. Given what has transpired in our past relationship, the "implied" meaning would be that you would do so (involve the cabinet), if I continued questioning the Candidates or engaging in anymore jokes on forbidden topics. Attempt to cover it any way you wish, your email was an attempt to shut me up, and as such, during what is supposed to be a free election, highly innappropriate. IF you actually emailed others, then those emails were also innapropriate. Without those questions, there would be a LOT less info for the voters to decide upon.

I will state flatly, that as a result of the manner in which the candidates, handled what I felt were difficult questions, I am more confused than ever, over whom to vote for. I honestly wish I could vote more than once. I look forward to whichever of the candidates wins, actually taking office period.

To clarify: The candidates campaign threads were locked because the campaign period was over. We are in the voting period and members may still read the campaign threads.

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015- Dec 2020
7th Brigade, 1st Division, XVI Corps, AoT
ACWGC Records Site Admin

"If you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there."

I do not think, Hank, that President Mallory had any intention of stifling the campaign debate or that he did not want informative questions presented to the candidates, as you so callously and detrimentally make the suggestion. Indeed, he exercised a great restraint in ignoring the present Club Rules in allowing the questions and answers to develope to the extent that he did, even when you went far out of your way to unnecessarily dredge up the past and take the opportunity to make additional allusions to the injustices suffered by your "dear old friend!" I, too, feel that the present rules regarding campaign debate need to be modified; and I, too, received the same message from David. But where you find it necessary to stridently cry "Foul" and present yourself as a crucified martyr, I prefer to actually begin work on an actual modification draft.

Futhermore, your defensive and senseless assault upon the comments of General Barlow did nothing more than reveal your own culpability in wallowing about in the past, further demeaned and tarnished your own reputation and uselessly deflected the discussion.

You understand very well the protections afforded you by the openess of these boards and have continually sought to manipulate that privelege to your own personal advantage, with no regard for the negative impact upon the general readership, or perhaps in direct anticipation of it! Adding insult to injury you couch all of your dissensions and disparagements in closing statements of hypocritical pledges of personal support and visions for a better tomorrow.

Frankly, Hank, I'll be glad to see you finally walk away from that which you seem to continually find so distastefully obnoxious and oppressive!

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

General Meyer,

The "dear old friend" you refer to would be Notso I assume. I never once recall bringing him up at all. The incidents I spoke of were absolutely not about him. I plainly stated that the individual in question was not my favorite person. Notso is someone I like. So you are
off base there......I consider his case closed as he is no longer hosting sites, and he no longer has any desire to be a member of this club. I just don't want to see those events repeated at will by those in power.

As for your "Opinion" of General Mallory's intentions, if you wish to ask which of us is being hypocritical, you had best look in the mirror. No matter the language, the email was indeed a politely worded threat. There is simply no other way to read it. I broke no rule by asking questions and neither did anyone else. There is absolutely no rule that forbids questioning of the candidates. There is wording stating what is encouraged, but no rule that states that questions may not be asked. If they intended to squelch questions and the flow of information, then they should have worded things differently.

You may choose to claim my reply to General Barlow was an assault if you wish, but if you read it you will see that though it debated a point, there was absolutely no discourtesy to him personally. Further, I harbor no ill will towards him. I have had absolutely no contact with him in any way since joining the club many years ago. However my point was legitimate. There is absolutely no evidence that the basis of his question is in fact, the truth. It is a perception on some peoples part. He stated it as a fact, and that was the only point I was making. Had he merely said, "In my opinion, most folks are happy" I would not have bothered to reply. I will say that I apologize to General Barlow, if offense was taken, for the tone, but absolutely not for the content of my reply to him. No offense was intended.

For your statement of "My culpability, in wallowing in the past". I have zero culpability there. I believe in my cause extremely firmly and no insults or nor critically worded twisting of the issues shall ever shake me from that. All I fight for is freedom of speech, and transparency of process. The only persons afraid of those concepts are people not wanting the truth to be known. Perhaps you are against these things?

As for working on a draft, I congratulate you there. I'm certain, based on the assaultive nature of your comments here, that you won't take
me up on this offer, but I would be willing to work with you on it. I can put personal feelings aside and work with almost anyone. I will be sending my ideas to the winner of the election after he has taken office, whether or not you and I exchange ideas.


"""""""You understand very well the protections afforded you by the openess of these boards and have continually sought to
manipulate that privelege to your own personal advantage, with no regard for the negative impact upon the general readership,
or perhaps in direct anticipation of it! Adding insult to injury you couch all of your dissensions and disparagements in
closing statements of hypocritical pledges of personal support and visions for a better tomorrow.""""""'


Kindly inform me exactly what personal advantage I have gained by my writings n this board. I have to take the insults of persons like you, when what I am fighting for, would benefit all but a select few. I understand that I have a great many who hate me here. It would have been far easier, and far less painful, to keep my mouth shut. But it is my belief that I am fighting for a better club. There is nothing
hypocritical about me. I do not support the status quo. I will work with anyone I believe will work towards the goals I have stated.
I'm even capable of changing my mind about people should they deserve it. If you think for one minute that I don't want to see this club
grow and thrive in a better and bigger way than it ever has, then you are completely ignorant of the facts, or you are simply out to slander
me. You appear to me to be a person who believes that it is OK to commit unjust acts and then sweep them under the rug, IF you believe it is for “the good of the club”.
I simply disagree.


Lastly, I will say that you shall NEVER see me walk away from the club. I wouldn't give you the satisfaction, even if I wanted to leave. So congratualations, after your venamous statements today, you just insured the club of not be losing my membership. I'm sure the folks in power appreciate your post here today (Who knows, perhaps they helped write it), and I support your right to make it (because I am not a hypocrite), but I will say,you are one misguided individual in my opinion. Should you ever run from office, I promise you will not have my support, based on what I know of you so far. (However I'll keep an open mind should my perceptions of you change).

Hank Smith

Okay gents, if you want to continue this you'll have to take it outside. I'm locking this one up.

_________________
General Mark Nelms

3/2/XX/AoC "Blackhawk Brigade"

Union Military Academy Instructor