I would like to run for Senator of Maritiimi-Maxhestic.

My legally required pro forma 50-word statement is as follows:
"Did you know that most micronationalists refer to Talossa in the past tense (believing that we somehow dissolved sometime in the '00s), and that those who don't still think there's two Talossas? We should continue reaching out to other naziunetăs, and not merely to remind them of our continued existence."

Quote from: Iac Marscheir on November 10, 2025, 07:40:49 PMAcest sembla la cosă exact cün qet éu non volt qe Talossan estadra aßoçiatat.

Eh ben, hi serà toctziuă dels partis del pialeu... es la maxhorità da lhor non isch à sürvivar ni pü qe viensă eleziun.

Façadréu la cuntenziun, qe "crac'har in la façă" da Ben Pirmalaiset non neceßarmint c'e'n mal cosă, schi si volt nominar-en com'acest. Sieux intrigăs sint scändlici, es sieux succeßoreux façevent es façent lor miglhor à distonçar-se d'acest conducat.

Masmint, ja viensă cosă, qi'st ocså 'n legaspi da Ben, es, in va opiniun, el miglhor äspects es el pü üníc del päts: el glheþ naziunal, es la cúltură, qi deriva da ça. In 'n sençù cunceßadămint 'n po stroinschă, úçar el glheþ c'e el miglhor vej à þonourar Ben sè comtribuziuns sanc escusar sieux vilanïăs.

QuoteHypocrisy isn't any more illegal than a compliment. But I am happy to help people see who is doing the name-calling when you and your allies do your whispering.

Defamation of character counts a tort. Since you evidently believe you are being defamed (i.e. that people are lying about you to damage your reputation), you should have no qualms about suing civilly. I invite you to sue those who you imply are defaming you.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on November 07, 2025, 06:43:57 AMIt is the exact behavior you pretend to need to protect others from. Hypocrisy is ugly and I'm glad for people to have a record when you lie and claim that I'm the one doing the harassing.

Hilarious, coming from you. If you really think it's a lie, then sue. I dare you. Until then I and everyone else who was there to see it will refer to you by the appropriate terms.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on November 07, 2025, 06:35:28 AM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on November 07, 2025, 06:04:33 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on November 06, 2025, 08:47:01 PM

QuoteBreneir Tzaracomprada is a sex pest and harasser.

@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP Just to help you out for visibility I added it to my own banner as well. :)
But I am starting to run out of space, sadly...
You need to understand that these words don't mean much to me because I know who I am.

No need to be upset, you said we could warn all we want, so I did.

I'm not upset, I am disappointed at the continued name-calling. I'm glad to be able have it in my signature line for  more people to witness where the real harassment is coming from.

It's not name-calling, it's the truth. It's not harassment, its protecting people from you. Feel free to sue if you actually believe you are being wronged.

EDIT: And again with the "real harassment", implying what you did wasn't real? Yeah, I think you deserve to be shunned.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on November 06, 2025, 08:47:01 PM

QuoteBreneir Tzaracomprada is a sex pest and harasser.

@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP Just to help you out for visibility I added it to my own banner as well. :)
But I am starting to run out of space, sadly...
You need to understand that these words don't mean much to me because I know who I am.

No need to be upset, you said we could warn all we want, so I did.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 06, 2025, 03:23:29 PMAs an addition to legally requiring public disclosure, I guess that would make sense?  I'm not too fussed about it either way when we get to this juncture, because I do think that just making it actually against the law to do this in secret is 90% of the battle.

As Mic'haglh pointed out earlier, it's a bit pointless to criminalise something that is impossible to detect afterwards, so making it detectable in the first place is worth much more than 10% to me, especially if the purported purpose is furthering Government transparency. But admittedly, this is firmly in hair splitting territory.

QuoteSo sure, yeah, if that's what gets everyone on board, I'd be fine with adding that to the bill.  Do you have suggested language or would you prefer I write it?

Nah, go ahead.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on November 06, 2025, 03:16:54 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on November 06, 2025, 03:15:18 PMWell, that's only half of your apology (and note how even then you talk about everyone else is "committed to seeing" your statements as harrassing). You forgot to post the second half in which you relativise and make excuses for your behaviour.

So, in the first half you now admit that I did apologize for the discomfort I caused Luc?

Yes, that was what I was refering to by "I'm sorry you took it the wrong way". Not once did you actually apologise for what you said, but rather for how it came across. That is gross.

Well, that's only half of your apology (and note how even then you talk about everyone else is "committed to seeing" your statements as harrassing). You forgot to post the second half in which you relativise and make excuses for your behaviour.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on November 06, 2025, 02:59:29 PMI am not concerned with what you think a "proper" apology is. I have apologized for the discomfort my compliments caused Luc and for over a year now

Well, that's sort of the problem, isn't it? "I'm sorry you took it the wrong way" is not an apology, and the fact that you still seem to think that your comments were appropriate and that it's everyone else who is doing you wrong and mischaracterising you doesn't help.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 06, 2025, 02:44:03 PMIs there a version of this where the Opposition could request access to the record, or something similar?  I guess, and I'm not really opposed.  I'm just wary of creating a whole new big edifice to address what is hopefully a theoretical concern, and so I'd also be content with a preserved record available for another government to investigate in the future.

If you simply were to give access to an account with mirrored applications on it to e.g. the Tanaischteu you wouldn't need any further edifices. Better yet, the Opposition wouldn't have to wait until they win an election to discover illegally suppressed applications, since they have full access to the emails as they come in in real time. Wouldn't that be preferable?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 06, 2025, 08:18:52 AM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on November 06, 2025, 07:55:40 AMHow is your idea of mirroring application emails to the A-Xh (who would be a cabinet member and part of the governing coalition) any more transparent than doing the same but with someone appointed by HM Opposition

Yeah, that's a great point!  I'd suggest that my other suggested option of a justice would be the better choice.  I think the A-X is typically going to be fairly unlikely to abet a crime, but a justice would be much more unlikely.  Or even an email account the justices can all access.  It'd probably never be used, unless there's some reason to suspect that applications are being secretly discarded (like a later Government wants to check or the like).

Justices would be impartial I suppose, but when it comes to scrutinising the Government's actions I don't think you want impartiality, but rather thoroughness and rigorosity. Maybe this is a cultural barrier of sorts, but from my understanding, the whole point of the Opposition is to scrutinise the Government and discredit them for wrongdoing. As such, the most logical choice for who to give mirrored applications to would be the Opposition. Whatever other criteria we might want to place on the MinImm to disincentivise deleting or withholding applications, it should be up to the elected Opposition to make sure that no deleting or withholding actually takes place. I hope what I'm writing here makes sense.

Just for my own understanding. How is your idea of mirroring application emails to the A-Xh (who would be a cabinet member and part of the governing coalition) any more transparent than doing the same but with someone appointed by HM Opposition (not just "another political party" but specifically the Opposition)? The A-Xh might even have an incentive not to publicise corrupt behaviour by fellow coalitioners, whereas an Opposition appointee would have every incentive to publicise such behaviour. What am I missing here?

Similarly, since in the current set-up the MinImm has no obligation to share new applications with anyone, even if the Opposition were to appoint an immigration inspector right now, the MinImm could just as well delete applications, tell the appointee that no applications came in, and the rest of us would be none the wiser (as there is neither an obligation to be transparent nor any mechanism to ensure that the Opposition gets notified of new applications unadulterated). If a MinImm is already inclined to withhold or delete applications, they would have no additional ethical dilemma about withholding information that they are not legally and mechanically obligated to share. So in the end implementing this idea without legal enforceability would rely on the honour system again. What am I missing here also?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 04, 2025, 05:27:02 PMThanks!  It was pretty fun to do, but I couldn't have even begun if it hadn't been for @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP 's help!  Speaking of which, Tafi, do you want credit somewhere on the website?  You should really be listed as a co-author, but I'd be happy to put you in whatever capacity you please.

Oh, sure. Co-author might be a bit much, but you could credit me as language support and proofreading or something.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on November 03, 2025, 05:18:12 PM

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on November 03, 2025, 05:09:03 PMFollowing this reply under one of my posts, I request you, @Breneir Tzaracomprada, to take down any videos of me that are on Fora Talossa and delete the files from your device or possible devices.

If you will not cooperate I will not hesitate to take legal action, both in and outside of Talossa if deemed necessary.

Sorry, just to be clear, what law are you claiming I would be violating by not taking down a video you shared for publication with Fora Talossa?

Copyright most likely. As creator of the video, Barclamïu has exclusive rights over its distributions, and he just announced that he terminated your licence, if you will.

¡Michéu acest!

"Azul" is of Berber origin and simply means "hello".

The original word for it was glhimbă (which is still used to mean "tongue" nowadays!). The word glheþ came to be when King Ben wanted to add more words of Celtic origin to the language, without having to change the acronym of the Language Use Council or CÚG (Comità per l'Útzil dal Glhimbă at the time), as such, the Celtic form *ieþ was combined with the glh- onset of the Romance word to preserve the acronym to give us modern glheþ.

I believe Þerxh was playing white.