I think the post is more about what he said, than it is about who said it. For the poster wanted to know what other Freepers thought about a Convention of the States.
Activist and lawyer Phyllis Schlafly was totally against it. Since the Constitution mentions it but never really set any rules on how they are to function, makes for a lot of pitfalls. Almost seems like they added it as an extra layer of protection, but couldn't quite figure out how that protection really might work, and instead left it for others to hash out. An afterthought if you will that someone suggested and thus it was added.
I have flip flopped on it, when someone says there is nothing to worry about, though I have been most not in favor of it, because there are just so many unknowns about it. Besides that, if we can't work within the Constitutional framework, then it becomes even less likely to be a solution, and more like a Pandora's box that might unleash more harm than good.
All it can do is propose amendments. It simply bypasses Congress, who was the originator of all the modern amendments. How have those worked out for you? The states then have to ratify under the same 3/4s rule as the ones passed by Congress. If there is more than one, each has to be ratified by the states separately. The states get the choice as to how to ratify.