Well now where to begin.
It would help if people read what was in a post
before scurrying to condemn what was not said. It would also help if some posters were not dammed by a certain inflexibilty of thought.
I said I believed that the candidate was not suited to be ECF President - in an election I would think this is a view I am perfectly entitled to hold. I was then asked to flesh out my vague thoughts, so I added flesh.
I made clear that I believe the candidate to be a decent, hardworking individual and a good arbiter.
I would further add that had the candidate been nominated for, say, Chairman of Governance, I would have regarded this as a good thing.
I do not believe, as some on this board appear to, that a man lacking the qualities to be a good ECF President is in anyway diminished by that. Some people are more suited to some jobs than others.
Harry Lamb wrote a long, detailed post in which he dissected (with the bravado of those who can afford no more than ten minutes research but have unwarranted faith in their own intellect) my suggestion that the candidate was involved in the grading fiasco, and, at least in his mind's eye, "proved" the error of my recollections.
I could be more vitriolic at this point, but instead I would point those interested in facts to the two letters the candidate wrote to the Management Board at the time more or less accepting the points outlined in my earlier post - one of these I believe is available for viewing on the SCCU.
In passing, I never thought I would see the day when Harry Lamb would use the fact of ECF honours as proof itself of veracity of the thing they honour. But, of course, winning the argument (even when you are arguing with yourself,) is just sooo important to some. Harry, I never knew you held the ECF management in such huge regard. Indeed, I could have sworn you referred to the management you now quote in your support as a "mafia" and "shake-down merchants"
Let me make it as clear as I can for those "as can't think straight", I do not believe the candidate is suited to be a good ECF President. In saying this I do not for a moment discount the possibility that as a man he may well be as wise as Solomon and as noble as Galahad. The two thoughts can exist together.
And finally, I can not let Krishna's comments go without response.
I had wondered whether you were, what we in the North call a WUM (wind-up merchant), I mean no disrespect in that, and I accept that you are not. But it takes a breathtaking lack of self-awareness to go around calling people liars and ethic-less and then to be outraged at rather minor rebuttals. I choose to believe it is innocence. And that as with the Graham Greene charactor you are "like a leper without a bell, walking around meaning no harm."
Happy voting.
