Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
You don't see a big difference between the wording from January 5 and the January 7 one and you call next few weeks specific? Whatever you want to go with I guess...
Why need a 2nd tweet at all if that's the case?
So closer to option 1 (that you were discussing without all the information unknowingly to discuss it properly to know that the Friday resignation was brand new) . From my perspective based on the discussion at the time it looked different. No harm
You can go back to my reply. The main issue is largely diffused now, but to claim there wasn't an issue at the onset or there were no issues (conflict) is the point of contention. I don't have any issues at this point.
|
Where did I say the Jan 5 & 7 tweets were the same? You might be misreading me there because I’m aware they’re different.
I think I had enough information to discuss it “properly” (not sure what that means or who decides that). My feeling on the matter turned out to be correct. But that was probably also convenient, though I am often right about these things.
One correction though. It doesn’t sound like there was an issue at the onset. It sounds like there was a perception of a possible issue based on a lack of information (so maybe it wasn’t me who didn’t have enough information to discuss it properly?). It turns out that it was already being mitigated directly with the ethics commissioner through the entire process.
An understandable reaction for ethics critics. And the politically correct one for the opposition. But for the rest of us, it’s probably a good reminder not to react to strongly without all the information. It’s still worth trusting that some people still deserve the benefit of the doubt, even in politics.