G'day all - hi Ron, thank you for a spirited defense <g>, but, sorry if I am being nosy, but I think you may have missed Ron B's point [I guess I should not speak for Ron B, therefore, here is how I see the exchanges.]
Granted that Vrooman has vested interests in the case, CYA, if you insist on using a loaded term to make him a marked man, the problem, even up to this point, is the leap of logic to suggest one person's guilt with the speculation of another person's position. First, there was the speculation of a demotion. Then, it is the no respectable pro would want the job. The problem is: even if it were true, it wouldn't reveal an iota of evidence of the real case, let alone "pretty damning evidence." Besides, thus far, it seems that no one has disputed the fact that the former has urged the probe be widen to include others. So, where did the buck stop?
Or, let's us use another analogy in line with your argument. Let's assume a parole officer, who has been dispensing his duties with all the official protocol, had 5 parolees under his charge. Then, one day parolee A was caught violating the term of parole. Suddenly, parolee B was being accused without substantive evidence and the parole officer was accused of derelict of duties. Worse, rumor began to circulate that this parole officer is indeed a lousy official - and therefore, parolee B had to be guilty!
I must say that I am more interested in understanding people's logic [blame it on my misspent youth of taking delight in argumentation <SG>] than in this particular case, which I feel offer too little factual evidence, in a holistic term, for the general public to make hay
best, Bosco
|
