Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (57995)	8/4/2004 10:51:14 AM
From: Murrey Walker	Respond to of 793964

I do believe we are playing a game of "Pin The Tale On The Word, "Is"". (G) IOW, I am just giving you my take on what our Sec. of State meant in his interview. Consensus, though, can change hearts and minds. And so can a hell of a lot of money! (VBG)

To: Lane3 who wrote (57995)	8/4/2004 2:35:06 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

I agree that arbitration goes to a third party, basically the same as to a judge, who rules, and that's it, finito. Consensus is a result, which is, in my experience, reached by negotiation, which can be one on one, or facilitated by others, including a neutral third party mediator who does not judge but takes the role that the parties agree to. As a lawyer, I can negotiate for my client directly with the other lawyer, I can represent my client to the mediator, we can do a four-way conference in the same room, we can have two rooms and the lawyers do shuttle-diplomacy, we can have three rooms, one for together, two for breakouts, that's on top of my head. Another thing we do is neutral case evaluators, who don't mediate and don't arbitrate, just listen and then tell you what he thinks a judge would do. Sometimes the NCE is a sitting judge, sometimes a retired judge, sometimes an experienced attorney. Various permutations on these themes exist in other fields. Consensus "changes hearts and minds" when there is an on-going relationship, which existed before the negotiations began, and will continue afterwards. If the parties don't have a relationship which will continue after the results are reached, then the goals of preserving the relationship are not there. If the parties are already in agreement but don't realize it, I suppose you could call coming to that understanding reaching a consensus, but that's not what I'd call it. They already have a consensus, they don't reach a consensus.