|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: old man on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 11:35 AM CST |
What bullshit. This hair-splitting is right up there with "I didn't have sex with that woman . . . but she did have sex with me."
There was no misrepresentation, so far as anything reads that I can see. Unless, of course, you're willing to accept the alleger's version of the conversation as complete, in which case you believe that this alleged "conversation" contained *no* input from John Andersen. So how impossible is it to believe that after this "conversation" in which he allegedly didn't speak, Mr. Andersen may have reasonably believed he'd received an apology?
"In that conversation we discussed the forum, and I mentioned to him that I was not pleased with my handling of that forum, and how going into the elections I didn’t want to go down that route, and that I hope I didn’t offend him in anyway, and if I did that was not my intention, and I apologize.”
Read that again. Andersen was fined $67.50 for calling that an apology. Shit no, wait. . . . I'm wrong.
"I was not pleased with my handling of that forum. . . . and I apologize." All in one single sentence. And Andersen was fined $67.50 for MISREPRESENTING that as an apology. I apologize for my earlier misrepresentation.
At no point has the committee demonstrated it even inquired of Mr. Andersen's understanding of the initial conversation.
From reading the decision, John Anderson should now use this exact same evidence to complain about the "alleger's" alleged misrepresentation of the initial conversation.
With this committee's apparent standard of evidence, he'd win.
The worst part of all, is it seems to an outsider like there are two candidates, one who gave the other the credit worthy of an honest apology, and another who was too small to accept it. [ Parent ]
|
| |
|
