hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: The Injustice to Jim Hawes



<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
</P><P ALIGN=CENTER></FONT><FONT  SIZE=6 PTSIZE=20 FAMILY="SCRIPT" FACE="Brush Script MT" LANG="0">The Jim Hawes Story of Injustice</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
</P><P ALIGN=LEFT><BR>
I feel as though I should get my 2 cents worth in this discussion..  There is an old saying that goes something like " People strive to reach their own level of incompetence!"   This concept is surely true in this case.  Here we have a group of individuals who have obviously worked hard to reach their personal levels of incompetence.  Isn't it amazing that they all reached that "depth" (Since they surely have not risen to any heights) at almost precisely the same time..  If not, then how do you explain them reaching an arbitrary decision - in some form of majority - to remove Jim Hawes from the AHS Robin without giving Jim a chance to defend himself.  Since I do not know if the decision was unanimous or by a simple majority I have no way of knowing if there are individuals with enough guts and gray matter to have stood up at the "damnation meeting" and say "This is wrong.. This man has not had a fair chance to defend himself!" - so lets assume there were some that did not support this <I>"vigilante in the night"</I> appproach to "justice".  Perhaps there are some of the board members working on the inside to convince the rest that they really need to allow Jim the right to defend himself.<BR>
<BR>
One other thing.  Perhaps this whole situation has evolved due to individuals who have long wished to be looked upon by others as a leader.  They have finally gotten themselves onto the board (or what ever position it is ) and suddenly they realize that with this power they yeild is the ability to take people out..  Now remember, these may be individuals that have wanted to be leaders,  but have somehow misconstrued power as leadership.  So, the first situation that comes up is used as a showcase to demonstrate what happens to people when they get out of line.<BR>
<BR>
Unfortunatly, that individual, for what ever reason, was Jim Hawes.  And now, even if they realize what they did was wrong, do you think for one minute that these people are going to say '"Perhaps we were wrong - perhaps Jim Hawes should have his moment to explain!  Don't count on it ...After all, <I>"Leaders" </I>do not make mistakes.<BR>
Now that statement was meant to show how ridiculous and convoluted the thinking of  the "powers that be" can get.<BR>
<BR>
Ron Anderson<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>




 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index