Well said, Bill. To date, I've been personally uninvolved in the NCSG charter debate and have been open to arguments both ways. Anyone who recalls my recent work on the joint NCUC/ALAC statement wrt the IRT knows my primary passion is about advancing sane policy. I have little taste for process debates. What moved me to comment was the gutter tone, the insinuations, the tinfoil-hat-level conspiracy theories and ad-hominems that laced Milton's attack. They were petty and desperate and (on the facts I knew) inaccurate. Neither Beau nor Cheryl deserve this kind of verbal assault over what is, really, nothing more than a strong difference in strategy. The decision to personalize the complaint, to vilify two people whom I work with and respect greatly, poisons the substance of the debate in ways that will be difficult to repair. This post, along with previous ones (eg, "ten myths") indicate to me a last-resort strategy. Such a "nuclear option" abandons hope of reasonable discourse (why insult people you need to work with?). Instead, it simply seeks to discredit opposing proponents by any means possible as a means to effect change. I'm just not sure how to move forward. I'm certainly willing to help engage on a personal level, as Bill has, given all the bridge burning that has taken place. At a personal level, an apology to Beau and Cheryl, and an official disclaimer of Milton's remarks by NCUC leadership, would be a good start and the humane thing to do. Disagreements can remain but the tone MUST be raised.