I made it about 10 paragraphs in, and all it was was an explanation of a person's bitter and hateful stance against the Democratic party and against people he does not like. Also, regular Democrats were described as Hillary's delegation, when in fact they're just Democrats. I don't know who this person is, but he seems to have gone into observing the platform committee with an extremely hateful and negative point of view.

It's hard to form an educated judgement unless you read the entire article. I didn't come away with the same impression as you at all. To each his own I guess.

Using the emails as a talking point, this whole thing is just a giant piece of crap. Committee member Sherman should be disqualified because of the email scandal? This is even a talking point? WTF?

Really seems to be a train wreck of thought that is very personal for one single individual.

Giving the Thumbs Down on the Democratic Platform

snip

The attorneys in their initial defense attempted to maintain the weak facade -- this was an honorable leadership society that has nothing to do with politics or government -- and demanded a Summary Judgment from the Court dismissing the lawsuit. They described it as the mere rantings of a disgruntled individual jealous of the true campus leaders that sought to discredit through slander the States' self-described "most prestigious leadership honorary." I could not prove, asserted the defense, that FBK was anything less than honorable. Although I had never sought membership in the organization, the case -- which centered around defamation of me during my Presidential candidacy in 1995, was an attempt to tarnish the good name and reputation of an organization through the courts. After a jury found the organization and several members guilty of both defamation and conspiracy at the conclusion of a two-week trial, they offered me membership. I declined.

When the defense demanded dismissal, just days before the original date set for trial, the judge asked if they had deposed me, placing me under oath and having me testify as to what I could or could not prove. When they answered in the negative he ordered them to do so before he would consider the Summary Judgment motion.

I flew back from London, where I was then studying as a postgraduate in Legal & Political Theory and History, to submit to their questioning. I entered the room filled with lawyers and several representatives of the organization with three boxes of documents, a small selection of what I had compiled from historical research and productions obtained under Florida's public records law.

Jaws in the room quickly dropped as my attorney, Joseph Little -- a professor in the University's law school, had me enter a set of sample documents as evidence from each decade since the organization's founding in 1923 through the 1990s. They returned to the Court for their Summary Judgment Motion but instead received a Judicial Notice -- establishing as "indisputable fact" the historical control of university politics by a "house and group system" of party bosses and deals in exchange for office and legislation and the further historical nexus between the campus politics, prominent alumni, and State government. Recognizing they were beaten, to try and blunt the impact with the jury, when the trial commenced over a year later, the attorneys opened their case declaring that I was probably the foremost authority on the history of the organization.

Or succinctness.

It's like my last paper in college. Too much fluff to actually read without falling asleep.

Needs to apply the 50% rule - get rid of half the words, then edit.

Seems about right as to how I do emails for business. My final draft is half of the original.

I can't imagine why you left out the title of this rant.

Shame on this attempted end run.