[TheForge] fair is fair

Mon Jul 8 11:06:01 2002

So, we are in agreement.  The statement was unclear and in need of 
clarification.  The definition of certain words now withstanding, I still 
don't see why there is a problem with my questioning the statement and 
wanting a clear statement.  George didn't get this hard of a time because 
he interpreted Bill Fiorini's first statement differently than other did 
and pushed for a clarification.  What's so wrong with me wanting the same 
thing.

I stand by my assertion that Chuck's statement made it appear that Tim Ryan 
had been "dumped".  This was not factual and was misleading.  Questioning 
such statements is and was valid.  Heck, even Chuck didn't seem to have a 
problem with that.  Why you do is beyond me.

If I tell someone that I "went to great lengths" to do something, then you 
can be sure I did it.  If I didn't, I'd say so.

Dave

At 10:21 07/08/02 -0400, you wrote:
>I read "the board went to great lengths" as an adequate (but leaving something
>to be desired) substitute for "attempt".
>
>If my son tells me he "went to great lengths to get the garbage out" I 
>know the
>garbage still has to go out.
>(As in he went to great lengths, but never got it done.)
>
>You may have interpreted it as unequivocal, but since I interpreted the
>statement differently, it's (by definition) not unequivocal.
>
>And the definition of unequivocal IS unequivocal. :-)
>
>Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Dave Brown
>Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:56 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [TheForge] fair is fair
>
>
>At 23:20 07/07/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >Dave, you misinterpreted the statement about Tim Ryan.
> >I don't still have the original, but I know it wasn't unequivocal
>
>Bob, here is the statement, snipped from theforge archives ....
>
>
> ><quoting Chuck Robinson from Sun Jul 7 17:05:01 2002 >  ...The board went
> >to great length's to illegally dump him from the board when he tried to
> >object to some of their questionable  decisions.
>
>As written it's a statement of action taken  i.e. "...to illegally dump him
>..."
>
> >, though I
> >know it could have been interpreted that way.
> >I, at first, interpreted it that way as well, the first time I read it.
> >When I re-read it, I realized I'd made a mistake. I think I missed the word
> >"attempt" the first time.
>
>Bob, no matter how many times you read it you won't find the word "attempt"
>in the posting.  You can find the original in the archives of TheForge at
><http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/theforge/>
>
>The posting said that an action was taken.  I challenged that.  I was well
>within my rights to do so.  The action did not happen as represented
>(whether intentionally or unintentionally) and needed correction to keep
>accurate facts on the table.
>
>I don't understand why wanting accuracy in this matter isn't a good idea.
>
>Dave
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
>theforge mail list group photo site is
>http://www.photoaccess.com
>Login:  [email protected]
>password:  anvil
>___________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
>theforge mail list group photo site is
>http://www.photoaccess.com
>Login:  [email protected]
>password:  anvil
>___________