At 01:50 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Jeri Clausing wrote:
>the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the
>report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room
>several times what you had done.
Somehow, I always thought that "in principle" was quite different from "in
detail".
In the more subjective realm, I've come to view the term "in principle" as
being used to mean -- rather clearly, frankly -- that there are
reservations about the details.
An opening 'graph that says "...endorsed a controversial set of
recommendations for cracking..." does not make this distinction and sounds
vastly more definitive, formal and final than the much-later text "The
board deferred final adoption of the recommendations until...".
Sure enough, the national pickup of this article got exactly the wrong
meaning from it, failing to distinguish principle from detail, and initial
support from formal passage.
But, then, the article does not point out the very limited consistency that
Froomkin has, or to explicitly make clear that delay is in the interest of
NSI. But who gets quoted?
For that matter, where are the quotations of support in the article?
As always, it is far easier to write a story about controversy than about
compromise.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
