02-08-2015, 01:40 PM
Ian
I accept that you are the arbiter in these matters and that we must abide by your rulings, but it’s a disgrace that Andy (H) should be pestered in this way while on holiday.
Phil’s two posts earlier this morning were disingenuous and did not deserve to be accorded such respect. Please note that his second post did not specify to whom he had addressed his private emails. He was careful to infer it was the ED. In fact, as a non-CS member, Phil has no call on any CS official. Andy H was under no obligation to respond to Phil’s private emails - all the more so if these concerned criticism of CS business, which certainly is what Phil implied in his posts addressed to both Andy (M) and to me. His criticisms need to be correlated with those voiced in another thread. Phil is not alone.
If Phil is sincere in his implied criticism of the SGM, there is no need for him to post to this effect on this Board. All he has to do is coordinate with another “dissenter” by private email so that a motion can be raised at the AGM - if time still permits. Instead, he chose to “wave a flag”. Why would he do that if not to draw attention to himself? By what right does he ask other readers of this thread to do his unsavoury work for him? Let him sling his own stones!
On this Board, we respect and tolerate pedants. At times we even laugh with them! But, pedantry as a means of snide criticism is unwarranted.
George
I accept that you are the arbiter in these matters and that we must abide by your rulings, but it’s a disgrace that Andy (H) should be pestered in this way while on holiday.
Phil’s two posts earlier this morning were disingenuous and did not deserve to be accorded such respect. Please note that his second post did not specify to whom he had addressed his private emails. He was careful to infer it was the ED. In fact, as a non-CS member, Phil has no call on any CS official. Andy H was under no obligation to respond to Phil’s private emails - all the more so if these concerned criticism of CS business, which certainly is what Phil implied in his posts addressed to both Andy (M) and to me. His criticisms need to be correlated with those voiced in another thread. Phil is not alone.
If Phil is sincere in his implied criticism of the SGM, there is no need for him to post to this effect on this Board. All he has to do is coordinate with another “dissenter” by private email so that a motion can be raised at the AGM - if time still permits. Instead, he chose to “wave a flag”. Why would he do that if not to draw attention to himself? By what right does he ask other readers of this thread to do his unsavoury work for him? Let him sling his own stones!
On this Board, we respect and tolerate pedants. At times we even laugh with them! But, pedantry as a means of snide criticism is unwarranted.
George