Hello, Paul. Good to have you back here. I'm directling this post only to you, and am putting it in the main forum merely in response to yours.
With due respect back to you as well, we will just have to agree to disagree on the issue of correcting an untrue statement, but that's fine with me --- we can do so without being disagreeable. Please see my prior post to you on this subject, which explains why this course of action was taken. There is also a concept known as "overlooking an offense", which, as I see it, is exactly what Brian did when the Company failed to confirm with him before issuing the PR --- there was simply no need to embarrass Mr. Pohl or the Company over a non-issue. As Brian has said, he holds a J.D. (law) degree, and thus has the mind of one trained in law school --- so, in reality, what we have is a few people (not referring to you) who just enjoy making "distinctions without differences" so they can cast asperions and spew their hatred.
Nevertheless, the discussion this morning was enlightening. As I suspected, Rebecca finally confirmed that she has done no "DD" showing that Brian ever referred to himself in the manner stated. Having been caught in the act, and having done no real "DD", Rebecca has now invented a document that doesn't exist, but that "must have" (my paraphrase) been given by Brian to the Company. This, of course, is the problem with those who actively choose to deceive --- once exposed, they must constantly misrepresent something new. Real "DD" would require that someone alleging the existence of such a document would have contacted the Company to inquire about it and obtain a copy --- but, of course, Rebecca will not do that, because it would prove her wrong yet again.
I'm done with this subject unless you wish to discuss it further --- and in that event, I would suggest we do so via PM or email. Best wishes.
