On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:32:06 -0500, "Rick Phillips" NoSpam@NoSpam
wrote:


If you are going to tell it, tell it straight. THAT person only recieved ONE
warning letter and was made to retest, yet the letter did not give
interference as being the reason for the retest.
This newsgroup has already hashed and rehashed THAT person's retest, ad
nauseaum.

One letter?
No "interference"?

Read everything closely. There were three letters sent.

The letters to both Wiseman and Tunder were a preemptive "warning"
that did not allege any activities. That hardly qualifies as a warning
in the context of someone having actually done something.

The letter with the warning in it ALLEGED interference, and warned of
consequences.

The retest letter made no reference to interference; in fact gave no
reason for requiring the retest. Such a request is part of the
Volunteer Examining program. It could have been made for any number of
reasons that may have had nothing to do with any of the addressee's
actions. An investigation into the VE group that gave the test, would
be a good example.

Only one letter was a warning referring to interference.

So, yes; if you are going to tell it, tell it straight.


LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net