On 9/6/05, Charlie Collins <cwc+@...> wrote:
>
> My whole explanation was intended to clarify why people take objection to
> your statement that it "should not require much time for deliberation".
I would expect quite a lot of debate before something like this was
approved, but the nature of a notification is that the sole purpose of
it being in the database to begin with is to make sure the whole ST
chain is aware that it was approved, not to debate whether it should
have been approved in the first place.
> Appearing to resist something does not mean that it would be actually
> denied. He did not push the deny button, nor did he say that he would no=
t
> approve it. You speculate that Dale did not want to touch it with a
> 10-foot pole, yet Dale made comments of his own more than a week before
> Jason was fired. Did anyone ever ask Dale for the reason that he had not
> yet approved it? Did anyone ever try to determine that it was Jason's
> influence, or was it merely assumed because Jason had criticized the meri=
t?
I said that *I* wouldn't have wanted to touch it with a 10-foot-pole
if I were the VST, so I could understand why another VST might not
want to approve it. That's all speculation, though, and immaterial to
the appeals decision. Whether or not Jason's comments had any effect
on Dale doesn't change the fact that those comments, and Jason's
general approach, were far from cooperative with the MST, and led to
delays rather than efficiency.
> I apologize if some of this sounds confrontational, but I can't find a
> better way to ask the questions or make my point.
I tend to be pretty tolerant in that direction, provided I have time
for the debate. Luckily, work is slow today...
--=20
Wes Contreras, US2002022038
US National Coordinator
cam.usnc@...
http://www.camarilla.us/