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 (94559)	1/10/2005 3:04:22 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793804

It seems to me [note that I haven't read the full report, just snippets] that if there was no political agenda which the panel could find as a basis for the error, then the error, if that is what it was, simply was one of judgment and not one based on politics or malice or an intentional flogging of the truth. If that is the case, does it make sense to end the careers of several highly regarded and loyal employees simply because of this lone error? I don't think so. Certainly not how I handle people. I'd make them each apologize in public, then punish them short of discharge. I suppose what I meant to say was that the only way the firings make sense to me is that there is a larger unspoken conclusion, namely, that, yes, the error was one based on intent and malice, but we [the panel] are damned if we are going to specifically say so because after all we cannot read people's minds. In the meantime, because we cannot let this obviously intentional act stand despite the fact that we cannot prove it so in a court of law, we will recommedn that all of you be fired. If that is what took place, the panel should have said specifically that they did not believe the protestations on the part of the staffers. In other words, the panel punted. My take, fwiw.