Sarah,
 
 
If you honestly believed in that higher standard, you would not have solicited an endorsement from me during the last campaign--you even offered concessions if I agreed to support you, and that's nothing less than a bribe.  If the office of AGM is a role-model for other GMs, owing to some "higher standard" that is neither inferred nor expressed, what is a direct violation of the campaign rules for our highest office?
 
I will not simply take the higher road this time, and let this double-standard continue to exist;  I will judge you by the same standard, and ask that others will as well.
 
 
Therle
 
[00:58] goeagle15: Hey, Therle.
[00:59] shudder0001: evening
[00:59] goeagle15: Is it ok if I talk about some election-related stuff for a minute?
[00:59] shudder0001: of course
[00:59] shudder0001: what's on your mind?
[00:59] goeagle15: I really like some of the ideas you've presented so far. I was wondering if, should you be eliminated in the primary, you'd support me?
[01:00] shudder0001: I hadn't really thought much about it.
[01:00] goeagle15: In return, I'd like to incorporate some of what you've said if I win. Specifically, I really like your idea about what Academy cadets should know when they graduate.

- Hide quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: Sarah Hemenway
To: tdregansky@wowway.com
Cc: Larry Garfield ; Geoffrey Joosten
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: =/\= GMD =/\=

Hi, Therle.

The dates I have are not subject to interpretation for the simple matter that I did not rejoin STF until June 20, 2004. That was my first recorded login date since April 2004, when I resigned from STF. Therefore, it would have been impossible for me to serve as your GMM before that date, meaning that it would also be impossible for you to have completed a training mission by July 1, 2004. In communication with David, I've now established that that mission could not have taken place, as your first e-mails with him were exchanged in early November. Therefore, the mission does not count and I'll have to see about having it removed from the Archive; I'm not sure whose mistake it was, but it was a mistake all the same.

As I've said before, a classification increase to AGM sets you above other GMs as a role-model for other GMs. Therefore, it's imperitive to make sure that all of your ducks are in a row, so to speak. :-)

Thank you for your continued patience with this matter,

Sarah

On 7/14/06, tdregansky@wideopenwest.com < tdregansky@wideopenwest.com> wrote:

    Sarah,


    Please help me understand what you're trying to say here.

    First, you tell me that we have to figure out this date, because it's
    important to your decision-making process, then when I acquiesce to the
    easiest date for expedience you tell me that you now need to check further to
    see whether an OGRE violation, when in all likelihood no dates can ever be
    reliably determined?

    Tell me, do you believe that this has any bearing?

    Does a possible oversight made by someone who held the position of GMDir
    before you hold so much weight that David, Emma and myself may now be
    subjected to an investigation for OGRE violations you suggest may have
    happened, based on dates we know to be unreliable?

    I just want to clearly understand your reasoning here.  Isn't there a point
    where something happened so long ago that it just doesn't matter anymore?


    Thanks,

    Therle


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/386 - Release Date: 7/12/2006