Posted by Lou PIlder on July 19, 2008, at 5:19:38
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-phairnreezbul? » Lou PIlder, posted by gardenergirl on July 19, 2008, at 0:35:33
>
> > You wrote,[...How is that fair or reasonable?...].
> > I would like to answer your question. Your first statement as to that the issue could be resolved by the deputies doing a search with my name is not efficient and I am unsure as to why it is not efficient for them to do that. In fact, would not just one deputy have to do that?
>
> That's not what you asked. Plus, you asked each of them to post on it. I do not find that to be a reasonable request. Nor is it within the standard practice of administration. Dr. Bob supports the idea that it is not necessary for each of the deputies to post an individual response to a question that can be answered by administration via one member's post.
>
> > You have also posted about helping Mr. Hsiung. I ask, in regards to your question to me here, could it not be fair and reasonable for a deputy to help Mr. Hsiung?
>
> They help in many ways, and I know from experience that it takes time, effort, and energy. They have to use that time, effort, and energy judiciously and wisely. And dare I say, effectively and efficiently. They do not have to, nor would it be wise to, imo, use that effort, time, and energy redundantly, within the bounds of a Sisyphean task, or when the common good that may come of it is relatively small in scope and scale in comparison to the quantity and quality of that expenditure of time, effort, and energy.
>
> I think I've made my views on this extremely clear, Lou, and I'm not very likely to change them based on any additional information you might present about this. I've danced this dance before. I know the steps. I know how it tends to end. I'd rather expend this energy clipping my dog's toenails, as that will have a greater benefit to me, the dog, and my carpets and wood floors, a specific and easily observed outcome, and a definite end to that round of efforts.
>
> Good night,
> gggardenergirl,
You wrote,[...it takes time, effort and energy...they (the deputies) do not have to use that..when the common good that may come from it is relativley small...].
That the common good that may come from it (I guess using a search with my name) that could have them know of the outstanding notification,could be of importance to the requester and perhaps other members that may be unbeknownst to the deputy that chooses not to do the search to see if the notification can be seen by them.
This went to trial in relation to a resturant chain that involved patrons that were of unpopular ethnic origen.
The facts were that those patrons were either refused service, made to have an additional requierment for service, and other denial of equitable service.
These patrons were made to wait after they orderd and then when the patrons reminded the server of that they had ordered and not received their meal, the server told them that they would have to order again and that they lost it (the order). They were then told that they had an additional requierment to be served, to(pay in advance).
For a resturant to do such one time could be excused. The trial court looked at if there was a pattern and there was, for group made up of the same ethnic affiliation was treated in the same manner. The trial court looked at that to be a pattern of more than just one-time.
Then the resturant could not produce the wait list. And the fact that the resturant was not full was taken into consideration. Then it was determined that the wait list was destroyed..
The trial court looked at as to who had controll of the situation. The patrons did not, the resturant employees did have control and could give equitable service or not, and could give either fair or unfair treatment to patrons.
In several of the situations the patrons that were treated unfairly were also subjected to ethnic slurs and epithets and violence by other patrons as a result of them being treated unfairly.
You see, there is much more to this situation here IMO than who can do what the most efficient way. My concerns involve not just that the notification was not addressed the firat time that I sent it, nor was it addressed when I posted each reminder that I had sent a notification and it is outstanding.And now months have passed and I am told now to send it again. I would like to understand why that request to me was not made the first time that I sent the notification or the reminders.
Now I will send it again if all the deputies post individually that they have no way to know except from me, what the post in question is. then if that happems we could know what Mr. Hsiung is wanting to mean by,[...we've missed them...send them again...] and,[...I can't answer all emails now...].
Mr. Hsiung and his deputies may or may not understand what the consequences could be to me by allowing the statement in the notification to go unaddressed. They may or may not understand as to what the common good could or could not be as a result of leaving the statement in question unaddressed. I think that we will have to wait and see as to if a deputy or Mr. Hsiung will do the search or not, or post that they have no way to locate it except from me so that I will send it again, and either address the statement in the thread or contact me with their rationale for allowing it to stand, or post that all the deputies and Mr. Hsiung can not locate the notification. I have received a confirmation that my notification was sent and that it will be either adressed on the board or I will be contacted as to why it is allowed to stand. That is what I have read in Mr. Hsiung's TOS here and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word.
Lou
poster:Lou PIlder
thread:306703
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/840698.html