Re: Just so I'm clear

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Thu, 25 October 2012 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B54D21F869B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xdS14p-Z-UzK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BCF21F85C0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id FQTB1k0061YDfWL5DZTENm; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:27:14 +0000
Received: from Mike-T530.comcast.net ([68.83.212.126]) by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id FZSJ1k00E2kB7pQ3gZSKxn; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:26:19 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:27:10 -0400
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Just so I'm clear
In-Reply-To: <5089AA60.3060405@gmail.com>
References: <20121023192135.203AC18C0A4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5086EF82.9060900@dougbarton.us> <20121023200713.GC1861@nsn.com> <5086FBCE.2070503@dougbarton.us> <20121023213251.GF27557@verdi> <50873AB4.1000905@dougbarton.us> <20121024034736.GC52558@crankycanuck.ca> <50876D39.20502@dougbarton.us> <508773E7.10203@cisco.com> <50877633.1000402@dougbarton.us> <EA9BEA2E-EE96-4E80-B719-652BBD620A79@lilacglade.org> <508842C2.4020203@dougbarton.us> <5088EE5A.4090103@gmail.com> <20121025205611.587DD21F8592@ietfa.amsl.com> <5089AA60.3060405@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <20121025212710.83BCF21F85C0@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:27:11 -0000

At 05:08 PM 10/25/2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
>don't think that these are in any way analogous, since in each
>case that you mentioned the individual who left was either incapacitated
>or had pre-arranged an absence.  If someone simply disappeared from
>work without notice or comment I expect it would be handled rather
>differently.

Professor A does not return from Sabbatical at the time he had previously indicated.  He is not reachable.

Congresswoman B goes into 90 day rehab suddenly.  Her staff says only that she's unavailable.  At the end of 90 days, she extends for another month.

I can go on.

We know that Marshall is unresponsive for a while and that is the ONLY fact we have.  We suspect (from the 2nd party Facebook conversation) that we know why.  But the truth may be (and probably is) somewhat different.


Later, Mike