Requiem

[Steve Lamb]

Thursday, June 15, 2000, 6:51:15 AM, Rodney wrote:
> As I just replied to Mr. Lamb:

    Oh, want to play that game?

> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:59:36 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> [...]
>>    Now, Trevor's involvement in the list has been stellar.  You'd be hard
>>pressed to get me to think ill will of him.  What he has done is relay
> [...]

> When did I try to get Mr. Lamb to think ill of Trevor?

    News flash, you didn't.  That was a statement to show the separation of
blaming BSW and blaming Trevor.  If you had quoted the complete paragraph...

"    Now, Trevor's involvement in the list has been stellar.  You'd be hard
pressed to get me to think ill will of him.  What he has done is relay
information as he's gotten it and the people he's been relaying for have been
screwing him, and us, over.  Ralph provided a history of how often and long
they have been breaking promises to and through Trevor.  Hell, even I didn't
realize it had been that long."

    ...it becomes clear.  Here I go explaining it line by line so you can
understand.  Ready, got the notepad out?  Good.

    First line is to establish my opinion of Trevor's involvement here.  He's
been the point man for BSW on this list in an unofficial capacity (IIRC).

    Second line reaffirms the first.

    Third line shows the position that Trevor has been in.  Most of what BSW
has "said" on this list has come from Trevor.  However, I think we're all
aware he's mostly a relay and not a decision maker.  The line also establishes
that fact.  It also places the blame at some point above Trevor not Trevor
himself.

    Fourth line states that while Ralph quoted Trevor his ire (again, if I am
wrong, he can correct me) is not with Trevor, but with the people feeding
Trevor the bad information.

    Fifth line states that I was unaware of how often bad information has been
coming out.

    Now, this is in direct response to your message
<http://www.rpglink.com/pmmail/archives/pmmail.2000-06/0055.html> in which you
said the following:

"Eventually the product is sold, and the new company actually has somebody
to fill this position!  So what happens?  He get blasted from all sides.
He tries to give honest answers, which, for all good intents, turn out
to be incorrect.  And what happens?  Some asshole assembles this person's
good-will posts to the lists in a most insulting manner."

    The somebody to fill the position is either Trevor or Jimmie.  Since
Ralph's message quotes Trevor more than anyone else, then it would be Trevor.
He is also the more active of the two individuals on this list.  You then go
on to assert that /Trevor/ is being blasted on all sides and that some
asshole, Ralph, assembles his messages and posts it to insult him.

    So, now, remember those lessons on context?  Read my statement again in
the /context/ of your message.  You stated that Trevor was being blasted and
that Ralph was, again, blasting him by quoting failed promises.  My message
refuted that stating that it is not Trevor we bear ill will to, it is BSW and
Trevor only happens to be the person relaying that information.

    Now, are we clear on that or will I have to ask Mrs. Henderson from Quincy
Elementary to come on the list and explain it to you as she would her second
grade class?

> Looks like perhaps Mr. Francis interpreted Mr Lamb's comments the same way
> I did (apologies to Mr. Francis if this isn't the case, but it can certainly
> be taken this way), so I'm not that far off base.  Mr. Lamb *clearly* implied
> that I meant to include Trevor.

    No, I clearly stated that I bear no ill will to Trevor and that the
quoting of his words was just a byproduct of understanding bad information
we're getting from BSW.  It is a common American English idiom that you have
taken /WAY/ out of proportion.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------