They originally weren't going to, insisting that there was NEVER a formal deadline. Eventually they conceded to the opt-out after a lot of the Ought-Sixers called them on the carpet about it.
THAT statement is irrelevant. The fact is that they DID. The reason they did is that members of the board insisted on it. Those that didn't want to acknowledge 9/06 in any manner were voted down. What exactly is wrong with that? The process worked!
You believe that whether they did it forthrightly, or under duress (after having deliberately misled people that "it was never a deadline at all, and so there's no 'release' for members who thought there was") makes absolutely NO difference, so long as everything turned out okay? I suppose some could agree with you. Others might say that it perhaps calls their ethics into question. That's for each person to decide for themselves, making my statement relevant.
Let's call the 9/06 a deadline. It will probably be missed. FSP leadership has modified its position to acknowledge the perception - which DEBRA herself once propagated- is important to those members. People that want that release can go with no ill feelings. What, exactly is the controversy, here?
The perception that 9/06 was a deadline? I still propagate that, since it was. There's no controversy now that they've done the right thing. Who is saying that there is?
As for saying that the FSP is now no different than a dozen other efforts going on - that's specious logic at best.
My opinion, as I believe I said. I really don't see any difference between them from a supporter's standpoint. For every single "unique" attribute that the FSP has over other current projects, those other projects have an equal number of "unique" aspects over the FSP (e.g. "The Freedom Ship isn't subject to US laws, so there!").
My point is that they're all trying to do the same thing, they all have about the same level of popular support, and the libertarian community will continue to divide its resources among them.It's Coke vs Pepsi, and as a result, none
IMO will ever succeed.
But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that point. Why not leave the FSP alone? Let them do their thing. You do yours.
Again, Kirsten asked, I answered. Or am I not supposed to say anything when someone asks about the FSP? Granted, it's not like I was privy to its founding, original public discussions, original board discussions ... oh wait. Yes I was.

Seriously, you can't possibly expect me to not express my opinion simply because it's negative, while you can express yours simply because its positive?
The FSP is finetuning their idea. You may not like it? Fine, ignore them.
Um, I was until Kirsten asked. Again, am I not supposed to say anything about which I have personal knowledge, simply because you don't like it?
Those people who wish to destroy the FSP - such as Boston T. Party - and mine the membership for their own projects are little more than ghouls. Every time a feeding frenzy takes place in the libertarian community, a few more people get disgusted and rendered incapacitated to do anything. Liberty becomes a little less likely.
Couldn't any of the freedom movements started prior to 9/01 say the same thing about the FSP? "You guys are just ghouls feeding off OUR idea, mining OUR potential membership!"
All because people hold others to impossible standards, and do not acknowledge reality. I'm not talking pragmatism here; I'm talking modifying tactics and strategies. Nothing at all wrong with that. The FSP is too good an idea, with too much momentum to just piss it all away. Like it or not - it's the most famous libertarian movement in the world today.
Not sure where you're going with this. What impossible standards? What unacknowledged reality? Who said that there was anything wrong with modifying tactics and strategies? I think the modifications they chose are poor ones and said so. Others don't, and said so. History will tell. What's the problem?
The goal of the FSP has always been liberty in our lifetime, as quickly as possible. Yes, they extrapolated from initial intense activity and press coverage that 20,000 signups would occur in five years. Guess what? They were too optimistic. You want them to blow their brains out because of giddy optimism? How were they to know that after the target state vote that the "losers" would attack them so viciously and repeatedly?
Actually, "blowing their brains out" was in fact the plan. I pointed out WHY it was the plan originally. I do not think that with their new structure they will succeed, for precisely the same reason all of the other projects are not succeeding. If the deadline had been 7 years or 10 years, maybe it would have succeeded. I don't know. So?
And an awful lot of people want to tear the FSP to pieces because Jason Sorens and DEBRA and several others weren't omnicient.
Is there a reason you keep putting my name in caps? Seriously, BUG, I'm not sure why the animosity here. Someone asked a question, I gave my answer. How exactly does that translate to wanting to "tear the FSP apart"? If I said Ganjastan had a poor implementation plan and I don't think it will ever succeed, does that mean I'm "tearing them apart"?
Again, the changes are designed to keep the FSP going. Nobody is making money, here. No careers made here. Just trying to keep the flame alive. WITHOUT compromising principles. The total money flowing into the FSP coffers is miniscule. I would wager that Bureaucrash revenues exceed the FSP!
I feel fairly confident I know how much money flows into the coffers, and I could probably find more in my sofa cushions. I couldn't care less if they use it to pay people (since employees tend to be a hell of a lot more reliable and productive than volunteers). The question is, SHOULD the FSP keep going? Should it continue to accept money/time/resources from supporters who might otherwise give it to an organization that may have a better shot at succeeding?
And just to head you off on this, I know. NO organization has a better shot at succeeding, because he FSP is special, unique in the annals of history, right? I'm sure all of the other projects say exactly the same thing. Which is precisely my point.
(shrug) Doesn't matter to me what they do at this point, any more than it matters to me whether Prince Lazarus continues to fundraise. It doesn't affect me. But I'll be damned if I'm going to refuse to offer an opinion on the subject just because someone thinks I'm being a big ol' meanie to the FSP.