[TheForge] fair is fair

Mon Jul 8 11:49:00 2002

Dave -

I didn't say the statement was unclear.
You said it was "unequivocal", i.e. it left no doubt as to its meaning.
If you're now saying that the statement wasn't, in fact,  unequivocal, then
yes, we're in agreement the statement was unclear and open to interpretation.
I didn't ever say there was a problem with your questioning the statement.
I only mention that the statement wasn't unequivocal in its interpretation.

I didn't give George a hard time because I don't recall him stating anything
"unequivocally".
Matter of fact, it seems to me he's been very careful to leave a little wiggle
room just on the off-chance he's completely in left field.

Actually, Dave, I didn't realize I was giving you a hard time.
I thought I was simply pointing out a reason your interpretation of someone
else's statement may have been different than what was intended, just as I had
made the same mistake. And you agree the statement is open to interpretation.
The only other person I can think of with whom I can agree and still be accused
of giving a hard time to is my wife.
(Were I chauvinistic I'd say it's because she's a woman, but since I'm not I'm
still at something of a loss......)

The improper interpretation of Chuck's statement may have been factual, and the
statement may have been misleading (or more properly "unclear") in how it was
interpreted, but I didn't find the statement itself to be so. Stand by your
assertion that it was, that's fine by me.
If I hadn't given Chuck the benefit of the doubt, reread the message,
re-interpreted it as he meant and realized I'd made a mistake, I'd probably be
standing my ground as well.

Now I just have to convince my son to be just like you, and I'll know the
garbage has gone out.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Dave Brown
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 10:54 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [TheForge] fair is fair

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