Intergalactic Summit

Furthermore, as far as I am aware, the old man still holds the stock, even if the granddaughter is at the helm. While I, too, have great trust in my relatives, I would be somewhat interested on what the corporation I own does even if I had a relative running the corporation. That, and I cannot help to notice that Mme Miloise has kept recently well out of the spotlight, even when her corporation was raided by the Federal Intelligence Office goons.

Mr Voloron, despite it being an apparant tradition of the Summit for the intended topic of debate to become distracted by another, we are not concerned with Intaki secession here, though I'm more than happy to explore it with you elsewhere should you wish to. That said, I shall respond quickly so that the discussion of the State's system can continue.

My criticism of the General, as quoted, is not an attempt to stifle debate or demand he withdraw from public discussion. Quite the contrary. I, and no doubt others would prefer it if he actually discussed a subject he raises. Unfortunately though, as I highlighted, along with those who had responded before me, and it's curious you have not found fault with them for doing so, it is clear that discussion and debate is not what the General had in mind when he made his opening statements. It is my view that the intent was to create conflict.

I would have more respect for him were he to return to defend his statements, were he to explore the counter points made by others, were he to engage in the discussion. But he does not. I invite you to look through past debates in the Summit records, including the archives, that were started by the speeches for which he has become known. It's a rare event for him to actually and meaningfully engage with those who respond to what are invariably highly provocative and confrontational statements.

Mr Voloron, for your accusation that I'm demanding the General remove himself from meaningful debate to be true, he'd have to actually start.

I also recommend you research the Intaki secessionists a little more before making assertions we seek to block public discussion. It might make interesting reading if we are to debate together in the future. We have an established presence here in the Summit as we focus on debating the issue, not trying to sweep it away. After all our mandate is one of peaceful secession through diplomacy. Public and open discussion is what we do.

It amuses me that you should try to reference the Suresha's comments on the flaws behind Roden's presidency and the questions of it's legitimacy because of the issue of voting rights (or lack of) and then go on to accuse us of seeking to restrict "freedom of expression, speech or opinion." When we consider the long political history between the Federation and Intaki, especially the subject of secession the irony of your comments are certainly not lost on me. Perhaps though this final point is more suited to the discussion currently exploring the Intaki Syndicate, including among other things, it's founding by those Intaki expelled from their homes for expressing their political will.