i must say that you are all the very finest spin doctors i have ever met
(applaud). but thats old now. i want to know what is going to be done about
the fact that Jason was deprived of his rights (granted byt the MH...which
he paid for). it seems to me, being deprived of those rights, means that a
service that he paid for was not rendered....which kinda sounds like breach
of contract to me. which, last time i checked, can be taken above the
"Almighty Omnipotent Glory" of the Camarilla Council. and im also sure that
somehow, this could be spun into a breach of contract (for failure of
services) for everyone in the domain who was/is a paying customer. just a
thought though.
Dan Murphy
US2002023585
On 9/7/05, Charlie Collins <cwc+@...> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Okay, somewhere along the line then, we seem to have gotten confused.
>
> You stated that one of the 2 out of 10 items that were relevant to Jason
> was "1. Failure to follow direct instructions from a superior officer."
> When asked about what instruction he failed to follow, you responded with:
> "He was instructed to process the application as a notification, not an
> approval. The application is still pending. I would say that qualifies
> as a failure to handle it as a notification (which should not require
> much time for deliberation)."
>
> We asked why he was the one responsible for this delay given that the item
> was never set to Pending Mid. (In other words, why he is responsible while
> Dale Sheldon, Jon Hermann and David Bounds are not.)
>
> To which you responded: (I'm including the specific text you responded to
> so that there is less confusion of context. The text you are responding to
> is Henry's.)
>
> "> But it never reached him, so he never had the chance to process.
> And
> > if the fact that the application is still pending is evidence then Dale,
> > Jon, and David, who have all had jurisdiction over it for months, are
> > much more responsible than Jason, who only had a few weeks.
>
> Like I explained elsewhere, that's a defense that just doesn't hold
> any weight with me no matter how hard you argue procedures and
> semantics. If Jason didn't have any influence over Dale, or maybe had
> he tried to exercise that influence and failed, then it would be more
> convincing."
>
> From this (and some other statements you have made), we inferred (perhaps
> incorrectly) that Jason is being punished for Dale failing to click the
> "approve" button.
>
> If he is not responsible for Dale's lack of action, then could you please
> expand on in what way he "failed to process it as a notification"? Or in
> what other way he "Failed to follow direct instructions of a superior
> officer."
>
> Charlie Collins
> us2002023850
>
>
>
>
> Visit our Domain Website at:
> http://www.steelshadows.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]