SH: I think you have misread my post. I just re-read it to see if there was any ambiguity. There was none. I never said I blame Fred Arkoosh. In fact, I specifically said I do not blame Fred Arkoosh. Please read my post again.
You seem particularly anxious to blame present management for the Ledoux fiasco. I find this interesting, especially in light of your admission that Ledoux's behavior was unforseeable. You wrote, in post number 14468: "WHO COULD HAVE IMAGINED SUCH A THING." You contradict yourself when you blame management for the fiasco, yet state, in capital letters, for all to read, that the fiasco was unimaginable. In the past few months, did you post that Ledoux was unreliable, undependable, or otherwise not worthy of our reliance? If so, then congratulations, you have great foresight (and please direct me to that post). If not, then you are like the rest of us (who relied on Ledoux and their world class stature). Hindsight is always 20/20, and you cannot use hindsight to support a claim. You must look at the information that was available at the time that decisions were made.
Should you, or anyone else, present facts to support your conclusions that management has made actionable errors, I will certainly pay attention. Hell, I will work for free on the lawsuit. But conclusions, unsupported by facts, just piss me off, because we are seeing too much of that on this thread, and without facts, it is impossible to assess the value of the conclusions.
Neal |
