Quote:
|
See now I know (as if anyone couldn't know anyways) you're a Wildrose supporter: Things not going your way? Take my ball and go home time!
|
That's more of an internet thing: I don't like what you're saying, I can stop talking and ignore you if I'm tired. Anytime. Regardless of whether or not I'm actually right (I'm not stating either side is right, but that both people who are right and wrong do it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Lady
The lie in question was whether or not she made the decision on who to use. He pointed to who "signed" the contract as the one who made the decision. Which are two different things.
|
I'm not extremely familiar with the details of this. But this definitional thing, from what I understand, can have pretty big implications in legal terminology (which seems to be the basis of Zwozdesky's ruling - that, while she encouraged the use of a certain firm, did not ultimately have the right to decide who to use). Neither seem exactly what you want out of a group (in this case, playing favourites), but only one is using conflict of interest as only one has the right to decide who to use.
One other thing I'd like to ask is if Zwozdesky's inexperience is playing a role. Many sources seem to imply that he has been extremely patient with opposition, something that's uncommon with speakers of majority governments. Another note that I've seen is that the debate has been quite a bit of mudslinging and was threatening to overwhelm the actual process and questioning. I think it's entirely possible that he's not grasping fully how to deal with loud opposition who don't like what he's saying if he decided to shut down the debate. whether or not it was actually being useful at that point. In that case, his outburst and shouting matches are more to do with frustration on his behalf than shutting down opposition.