On 9/7/05, Charlie Collins <cwc+@...> wrote:
>
> This is one of the things that very much concerns me about the whole
> proceedings. Jason had no reason to ask for an investigation of Dale's
> state of mind because as far as he was told, that wasn't something that h=
e
> was accused of. If one cannot pin down clearly and concisely what was do=
ne
> wrong, then we are left with two major problems. First, no appeal can be
> reasonably be made on the basis of logic. And second, it leaves people
> with a precedent of wrongdoing that they cannot understand and so cannot
> learn from. Without clarity, how is someone expected to learn from
> mistakes?
I suppose it's my own fault for responding to tangents instead of just
staing that they had no impact on deliberations, but this tangent is
really getting confusing.
Dale's state of mind had no bearing on my decision. I didn't
anticipate it having any relevance, and Jason didn't mention it might
be relevant, so I didn't ask. Only in the pretend-world of pure
conjecture, which got discussed for an email or two, would it have
possibly mattered, but even then, I suspect it would not have affected
my decision.
--=20
Wes Contreras, US2002022038
US National Coordinator
cam.usnc@...
http://www.camarilla.us/