Re: Moving forward with Issue-204

On 06/08/2012 01:00 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Sam Ruby writes:
>> On 06/08/2012 12:50 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
>>> I am perplexed and disappointed that my direct appeal is
>>> now diverted.
>> Per Judy's request, I will not interrupt further.  You are welcome
>> to proceed.  Meanwhile, please let me know a deadline by which you
>> will commit to completing your efforts in this area.
> Thanks for that, Sam. But, how do you propose to undo the diversion
> introduced here since I first posed my question last night? It's no
> longer the same playing field. What do you suggest?

Jonas has already responded once:

Your reply to Jonas response did not pose any new questions, nor did it 
attempt to address his concerns:

Your question last night seems to simply be a reiteration of your 
previous position, which Jonas already responded to:

Unless you have additional avenues that you would like to pursue, or we 
hear from Jonas or others that there is indeed something new in this 
discussion that merits consideration, we seem to be in a position where 
dissent remains and it is time to move on to the next step.

Forgive me if it feels like I am hurrying you along.  But what I am 
specifically looking for here is something new that has yet to be discussed.

> Janina

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 17:43:06 UTC