Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) |
Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:38:18 +0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
<p0624081cc6dfb61be0e2@[192.168.1.153]> |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sep 23, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As Milton is not currently the chair or in an official role for
>> NCUC (I don't think), I am not sure why NCUC needs to repudiate him.
>>
>> I am sure we all don't agree with what any of us writes and am not
>> sure that we need to write a repudiation every time someone says
>> something the NCUC doesn't agree with. I would not expect the NCUC
>> was reading everything I wrote in my blog and deciding whether they
>> agreed with me or not or whether they needed to publicly rebuke me.
>>
>> Not making any personal comment on the content of this yet, since I
>> have not done the research.
>>
>> I would also be surprised and disappointed if anyone were to take
>> his personal words and his personal blog , whatever their
>> characteristics, as a cause for action against the NCUC.
>
>
> Unfortunately, people do associate Milton with NCUC. And as changing
> such perceptions is hard, it's best to just say he doesn't speak for
> us.
>
> And the post, in its substantive parts, does read like an NCUC
> position.
I think Avri's reply on the blog addresses this well.
BIll
|
|
|