On 12/2/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
We do need to look at what happened. We have the same problem Ed has,
a lengthy and confusing complaint. Our practice is to assume good
faith and try to figure out if there was anything to it.
I understand that - I am not saying to not be careful - I know that the
committee is and am glad that they are. However, after looking at what
Fuelwagon has written, and assuming that the facts (not the lengthy
persuasive arguments - but the actual changes and actions by Ed and
Fuelwagon) that he has cited, the arbcomm could determine if there is a
pattern that warrants even a closer look from the arb committee, and, if
not, rule against him immediately without Ed having to respond.
We may have
an automatic reaction but Ed good, FuelWagon bad is no
good.
I agree, but I do think that:
Ed: exciteable with occasional mistakes but well intentioned,
FuelWagon: (don't know him well enough to summarize),
evaluating the person's credibility based on prior experience before the
arbcom or in mediation is not bad.
Jim