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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bridge Player who wrote (64240)	5/7/2008 6:15:31 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543150

apparently 13 of 15 committee members disagreed with your assessment Apparently, but maybe not. As in any performance evaluation, it's surely inflated. "Qualified" means "unqualified." Just ask service provider who gives you a form and asks for a feedback rating. They beg you to give them a ten. Anything lower than a ten is interpreted as unsatisfactory.

To: Bridge Player who wrote (64240)	5/7/2008 7:19:55 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543150

Nevertheless, apparently 13 of 15 committee members disagreed with your assessment, which thus appears to me to be a little extreme. Actually, it looks entirely commensurate with my judgment. Though it, quite frankly, wouldn't matter to me if it were not. I'm thinking of different variables than I would guess the ABA committee had in mind. But to the argument that it is commensurate with my call. That three level scale looks to be quite typical these days. The scale is actually a binary one. Everyone else was judged well qualified. Thomas received no well qualified calls. Sounds a bit like the investment analysts who never say sell, but when they say hold or don't buy, best get out.