Quote:
Originally Posted by Pig Pen
Oh my word! His integrity and livelihood on the line? Over disaffiliation?
Come on Daniel. If you think every detail is absolutely correct as posted here you need to take off the aluminum hat. The man's integrity was not questioned nor his job threatened. At least not where anyone can prove it.
Lest we forget, this seemingly all came about because the man wanted to do something in violation of a guideline.
And yes, I still think the scheduling was inconsiderate. Daniel, if the scheduling tables were turned you'd be singing a different tune I think.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pig Pen
The man may well have felt intimidated. Who knows for sure?
Here is the thing. If the District did nothing they would be ridiculed for being weak. If they confront the man on a legitimate issue then they are being intimidating. It is a no win situation for the folks who haunt these Forums. One side sees it one way and the other sees it the other way.
Not one time did I say the man did not feel intimidated. That does not mean he was actually being intimidated. Ever felt that way when that was not the intent of someone else? I have.
I do not view it as pressure for the DS to confront the man on a guideline he was not abiding by. Are you aware that the GB did in fact empower the Districts to deal with these issues at last years MidWinter Board Meetings? That could well be why this is the first time it is being handled this way.
Sorry you saw my posts as spin. I was spinning nothing.
A) The man violated a guideline;
B) The District confronted him;
C) The man chose to allow his church to vote to disaffiliate;
E) Thus far the man is still licensed with the UPCI.
Kind of hard to spin that.
|
There is merit in your last post. It's the former post I question. How would I know what the GB did?
Threaded Mode
