[Rintaran]

2) No he shouldn't. Anyway, no offence, but I don't want you in PR. It's a PR agent's job to speak for the party, which implies sharing the party's ideals. I'm not convinced that you do.

Mikkel, it may be better advised not to say inflammatory remarks and question people's commitment like this. Although I agree that the PR committee should be literally invite only, I don't think this is a good way of saying no to someone... Whether someone agrees with someone else or not does not mean we should belittle their commitment.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Guilty as charged. For a politician, diplomacy isn't my strong suit.

I didn't mean to imply any lack of commitment on his part, and I appreciate his willingness to get involved and look forward to hearing his opinions in the various committees that he has volunteered for, especially because they often contradict my own. Disagreement and discussion within the party is healthy because it helps to refine our position. Disagreement in the party's public face, on the other hand, is not a good thing.

[Ayes]

Mikkel, it may be better advised not to say inflammatory remarks and question people's commitment like this. Although I agree that the PR committee should be literally invite only, I don't think this is a good way of saying no to someone... Whether someone agrees with someone else or not does not mean we should belittle their commitment.

I don't really care about "e-manners" and I had been assuming that Mikkel wouldn't want me in a position like that, so I'm not stinging too hard from his comment.

However, it is clear that if Mikkel is going to serve as a party leader, he is burdened with the role of sugarcoating his speech. If diplomacy isn't his strong suit, perhaps he shouldn't be a spokesperson either.

That Jeff Coleman guy was pretty well spoken and charming. Would he consider the role?

2) No he shouldn't. Anyway, no offence, but I don't want you in PR. It's a PR agent's job to speak for the party, which implies sharing the party's ideals. I'm not convinced that you do.

The party's ideals or your ideals? How much do you want to distance yourself from the international pirate parties, who tend to be more radical than you? And how much are you assuming about the feelings of the registered PPCA members, here?

[Mikkel Paulson]

The party's ideals or your ideals?

Both, actually. If they're not one and the same, it would make me a poor leader. As I was democratically elected, it implies an endorsement of my priorities by the member base. However, these are formed by a continual dialogue. I hold views now that I did not when I first started to get involved in the party, and some that I didn't when I was elected leader.

That's not to say that I'm perfectly in tune with the rest of the party at all times. My views on WikiLeaks differ somewhat from that of most party members, but 4 hours of discussion and 500 votes later, I will nevertheless support and defend their opinions over my own.

How much do you want to distance yourself from the international pirate parties, who tend to be more radical than you?

That's not an easy question to answer. I have no interest in deliberately distancing our party from them, but we are already distant. Aside from a few interpartisan projects, we all go our own ways and set our own policy. Maybe our policy is more moderate than some, but that's our choice.

And how much are you assuming about the feelings of the registered PPCA members, here?

Probably as much as you are. Until I hear otherwise, I have to assume that members agree with the existing policies of the party that they have signed up to support.

[Ayes]

I'm going to send you a PM, mikkel. This is an inappropriate channel for this discussion, we should be encouraging people to join committees here.  Needless to say I disagree with you.