Comments on: Reap the benefits of going green

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:51:02 +0000

No worries, Christina.

By: Christina Nuckols

Christina Nuckols — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:34:14 +0000

Keep it down to a dull roar, folks. Thanks.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:14:50 +0000

#40 – “Michael, it was an insult and it was delivered as an insult..”

If you feel it was an insult, then nothing I can say will change your mind…nor will I attempt to.

I know how it was meant and stand by my comment. Take it however you like.

By: 89Hoo

89Hoo — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:12:14 +0000

I think it’s a distinction without a difference Sandi. But I’ll let it go (starting my New Year Resolution (to be more easy-going and relaxed) a little early).

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:55:54 +0000

Michael, it was an insult and it was delivered as an insult and denying that only makes it worse for your anonymous credibility. It is most assuredly not in my mind that I claim to be a damn fine employee, it is well over 30 years of affirmation of that fact from employers, co-workers and my rising wages and responsibilities. If I had to rate myself, I would never aim to brag like that.

I get it that you believe the people who work for the government should have the black helicopters and jack booted thugs ready to ferret out every attempt at fraud or every non-deserving person who dares to apply, but there remain laws against such “everything possible” efforts for them and for employers too.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:00:56 +0000

#36 – It wasn’t an insult at all, Sandi…simply stating that based on your comment, I wouldn’t want you as an employee.

You may very well be a “damn fine” employee in your mind, but if you worked for me and I knew you were unwilling to do everything possible to protect the company or ensure a program was as fraud-proof as possible, I wouldn’t want you around.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:55:14 +0000

89Hoo, you bemoaned me “when quoting” you. I only quoted your “grand lie” and the rest was my interpretation that you were saying the systems were unsustainable. If that is not what you meant, say so.

To quote us both accurately: You said: “The grand lie is to pretend that the systems can survive without some sort of reform”

And I replied: “I do not necessarily believe the “grand lie” is that the system cannot be sustained”

Now mayhap you meant something beside what I interpreted, but I don’t think so. Are we arguing over can survive as opposed to be sustained?

By: 89Hoo

89Hoo — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:02:40 +0000

36 – no, what you said was that you “do not necessarily believe the “grand lie” is that the system cannot be sustained”, an incomplete – and therefore inaccurate – representation of what I said. Please be accurate.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:39:10 +0000

Oh and here we go with Michael making this personal. Gee wasn’t he bemoaning the insults people have to suffer here just recently? I happen to be a damn fine employee.

I have seen precious little that any Congress has designed or any bureaucracy has operated that accounts for every possible fraud and mistake without expensive people and systems in place. Business makes a mint on such services for a reason.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:33:17 +0000

89Hoo, “please be complete, or at least contextual, when quoting me”. I did not say “nothing needs to be done”, and that was not what I meant or implied either.