# ****Let's Cut to the Chase

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by barJonah [barJonah] on November 03, 1999 at 16:53:59 {eZOTANvCI6ciGsuY5KW2s3Or3XCK4s}:

In Reply to: ***Let's Cut to the Chase posted by Friend on November 03, 1999 at 16:31:26:

Friend,

> 2) If the appointment letter came back without appointing the newly moved brother then what does he step down from?

> Nothing. So, just what is Greg considering stepping down from?

I must say that my first take on this was that he was stepping down from the debate.

> 3) Assuming that considerable inconsistency can be explained, how does any of that justify the victory declaration?

> I does not come even close to explaining it. Perhaps the rest could be explained, but not that. It was indecent. I do think that Greg has some good motives but what happened here today is inexcusable.

I believe the 'victory declaration' may well have been posted to 'draw fire' toward this new poster (just as Greg claims). TravisJ45 would then be Greg's 'defender' while Greg takes some unexplained absence. Pretty ropey, I know, but just possible, and I'm in a "cut everybody except Rick, Alan and Fred some slack" mood today. I know how easy it is to do something stupid on H2O (need I say more?), so maybe this has something to do with it...

What I saw today is really disheartening. And right now I just don’t need that.

Very sorry to hear that. I'm disheartened too, but mainly that the debate may not go on, and for the situation that Greg finds himself in. Again, personal experience may be a factor again, as I got a 'private reproof' in the early days of my journey out for exactly the same thing - heck, I wasn't even participating! I just lurked in those days...

bJ

-----

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *****Let's Cut to the Chase

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]