Matt Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:
BTW - I agree with your conclusion that the Col. missed an opportunity,
although I wouldn't expect his superior to be any more sensitive to that
possibility than he was.

Neil



I understand what you are saying. It would have occured to me as well.
The interesting thing about the position I have taken on this is that the
complainant is actually irrelevant in the equation. His letter for my
position is nothing more or less than a useful tool that might have been
used by the Col to a better advantage.
It was a gambit declined....a stalemate achieved where checkmate was
obvious. :-)

Go back and re-read the first churlish, snot-nosed complaint letter again.

As I mention elssewhere, my first take was some teenaged punk, not a 50's
something vet.

Al the colonel did was state the facts.


I have no need to re-read what I have already read and after doing so
formed a firm opinion. You and I are simply in disagreement on this. The
entire discussion is moot as are most discussions like this one on Usenet.
Opinions on past actions by others are simply opinions. Mine will not
change by re-reading the complainant's letter. As I said, the
complainant, his attitude, and his letter are not relevant in my position.
If you believe the Col "simply stated the facts", that is your position.
I respect that and have no desire whatsoever to "push" my position on
the matter any further then my passing comment on the matter and least
of all to indicate someone else's position is wrong.
Such is Usenet :-)
Dudley Henriques