Eegore wrote on 07/10/18 at 19:33:04:
" I offered you contact with the very people that will be handling this, I wouldn't even be involved to stop it from happening and that's an excuse. ..."
Incorrect,
you, offered: “…
I can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements from all administrative staff that chose to comment on the issue. The names would have to be redacted and it will take about two weeks to gain the appropriate permissions….”On post #13, this is response to post, #19.
“…Any alteration of a transcript is considered amended. Redaction of names is considered amendment, and would reflect as such on each paper…”Entirely depends on who you talk to. Redacted, is removing, ’sensitive’ information. Which were the, ’Names” !
As in your statement:
“…The names would have to be redacted…”Amending is to, alter, modify, rephrase, the content. And to add to or subtract to the content.
as in your later statement,
"...What is being offered is an amended transcript of a meeting,..." “…That is why I asked if you wanted me to have someone pursue this process. How can you verify the document is accurate if you do not have the ability to contact the people represented in it? …”You, ’say’ you didn’t understand what my meaning was, yet I believe you fully did understand what I said.
“…Do you want the people in the amended transcript to be contacted, and get permission for their names to be released to you? I can not say how each person will respond, maybe yes, maybe no…”This will be the 3rd time I said I do not need the names..
“… You said no, but then asked how you would contact them, so I’m just clarifying….”Really ? After I stated I don’t need the names, then you, surmised, I did need them, then when you asked again, I said NO.
Now, you are saying, If I want them, it will take much longer.
“… I don't know how these are excuses, I'm literally going out of my way to provide you information, or to provide you direct contact to people that will. …”In the first post, (that started this), you stated you would provide the information, leading to the decision of why the, ’no guns’ sign/s.
Now, their are more and more conditions on receiving that information.
Ya know, it’s almost like, you don’t have it, or have no authority to give it out, which you said you do:
“… can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements…”
“… Its like you are trying to be confrontational about this for some reason and all I want to do is share information….” Not at, just do what you said you will do, send the ‘opinions/meeting transcripts’ with the names of people crossed off.
Again the suggestion, Just print out the transcripts of the meeting, just make a copy. Cross out the names with a black marker, then make another copy. Then send that copy. After that copy machine, their is nothing more than a black line on the copy, where the name was.
“…I am not sure how to make it more clear that the signs were not implemented to increase safety. They do not work to increase safety or deter crime…” Yet they were installed! This is why I am so interested.
I want to see the comments, of so many people, that you have said, said, ’Signs Don’t Do Anything”,
and why/how, the ‘Signs’, came to be put up anyway.