|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: old man on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 11:43 AM CST |
Andersen was less than courteous in how he amended his blog, but that isn't evidence of misrepresentation.
It also isn't evidence of malice. It's evidence that the alleger's hypocrisy *offended* Andersen, as stated.
Malice, as practiced by Warren Kinsella would have Andersen immediately apologize to the alleger, remove the whole reference from the BLOG with a note saying "removed by request" and nothing else.
Then start answering the alleged questions you're getting about what was there and why it was removed, then refuse to say anything except:
"Another candidate spoke to me about the campaign as a friend, and I took it as a candidate, and that was inappropriate, and I've apologized." And you say that in forums. And you say that in classrooms.
And people are wondering, what's up with that, and you're more gossipy volunteers are telling people that the alleger apologized for her behaviour, but withdrew it when it was made public.
And by the time the "alleger" gets their side of the story out, they're talking to a poisoned pool. They must change people's minds about something, rather than tell people about something.
There were a million ways for Andersen to make better use of a misrepresentation.
I await the results of his appeal. [ Parent ]
|
| |
|
