I'll change my vote from Nay to Aye on the motion to table. Bgwah is right, and I have bigger fish to fry with my other bills anyway.
I have already lost confidence in Mary's PPT abilities. It is clear the troll cannot take any job more seriously than he would in his other flame wars all over the forum.
I don't need to try and convince you with my words, Napoleon. I'm doing the job that I know how to do pretty well, and that's all that matters as far as you're concerned. I hold this position to a very reasonable standard. Whatever my opinion on things is has nothing to do with my responsibilities as PPT, because unlike what you've proposed over and over again, the two things are separate in my mind.
If you have a problem with the job I am doing, then point out flaws in the job I am doing. I doubt you'll get very far in being upset by my "tone."
All of that being said, I do find it ironic that you're so upset with me having an opinion in this position. You yourself have proposed, numerous times, making the position of PPT
an institutionally more partisan position. If you had your way, you'd be giving the Senate que positions only to your party and making more and more decisions based on partisanship rather than what is best for Senate business. This isn't even my opinion, this is what you repeatedly
argue in favor of. I loathe the idea of making the PPT a partisan post. So if you want me out of this job, I suggest you come up with something more meaty than feigned outrage. Thanks.
I always assumed it was insult directed at his sexuality, because it was constantly used in IM chats by Hamilton and Libertas and I assumed they had originated it.
If it's ever been meant as an insult, I've never actually considered it one. Bgwah was probably the person who came up with it first, but he never seemed like he meant for it to insult me. So I don't really mind it either way. If it is meant as an insult, though, they certainly need to come up with something better.