Re: Pletcher Positive /Question for Barry Irwin (547 Views)
Posted by: (IP Logged)
Date: December 17, 2005 04:38PM
I think you are failing to see my point.
Unless someone is making a comprehensive statement covering all aspects of policy (like he might in a legal document to investors or others), I think it makes some sense to understand that they aren't expecting a lawyerly-like attack on their words. They are expecting to make a point. So it isn't surprising that they may need to elaborate on that policy at a later date.
If I understand you correctly, it seems you took zero tolerance to literally mean "your definition" of zero tolerance as opposed to the intention of BI.
If I understand BI correctly, "intent", "what was used", and perhaps other things are part of his thinking about what will be tolerated.
You may not agree with his standards, but IMO they are quite logical and consistent with a strongly anti-drug stance without being detrimental to the stable in a foolish way just to be consistent with some "words on the subject" that weren't a full expression of his views.
To me this is pretty clear unless the goal is to bust chops.
In any event, if BI elaborates further I suspect it will not satisfy you because you seem far more interested in the words he used than what he meant by them.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2005 04:46PM by speedkills.