Zappa 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 au contraire, it makes perfect sense.The Post Office (or Royal Mail for the pedants) have set up a system whereby if you complete a sending action, i.e put a letter in a big red box, they will deliver said letter to intended recipient.SoS have set up a system whereby if you complete a sending action, i.e. press a button, they will deliver said email to intended recipient Both cases require the sender to send something. Whether the sender knew he was sending is immaterial; the fact remains he is the sender, thereby answering the initial question as to who should be regarded as the sender SoS or the signatory to the petition. You seem to be getting SoS mixed up with the petition platform change.org here for your analogy to work properly because they are the go-between or the carrier like the PO are. Nonetheless, I think you deserve a lot of credit for your alternative viewpoint/explanation here because while it doesn't fix a flawed argument, it's extremely creative and out-of-the-box thinking should always be encouraged! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 That's nonsense. BD signed the petition, the organisers of the petition sent or caused the email to be sent to Mr Easdale; even if BD new the email was to be sent, which he didn't, he still didn't send it. That's like saying I send you an email which you FWD to someone else; so I sent it to the someone else; I don't think so. Jesus wept! Was *everybody* off school the day they did 'Analogy' in Higher English? it's not like saying that at all. It's not ever remotely similar. Look, BD signed a petition which had been set up to forward his signature to the petition recipient. Sending the email was not a nefarious afterthought on the part of SoS; it was done as part of the system setup. He was thus, the sender. BD's failure to understand how the system works is nobody else's fault. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,346 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Jesus wept! Was *everybody* off school the day they did 'Analogy' in Higher English?it's not like saying that at all. It's not ever remotely similar. Look, BD signed a petition which had been set up to forward his signature to the petition recipient. Sending the email was not a nefarious afterthought on the part of SoS; it was done as part of the system setup. He was thus, the sender. BD's failure to understand how the system works is nobody else's fault. When I signed the petition there was nothing to say that e mails would be sent, so how can I be responsible? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 When I signed the petition there was nothing to say that e mails would be sent, so how can I be responsible? Under the Petition itself, where it said: To: Graham Wallace, Rangers Football Club Sandy Easdale, Rangers Football Club Give written legally binding assurances to fans that Ibrox stadium will not be sold or used as security for any loans Sincerely, [Your name] what did you think that meant? How did you think the recipients would receive your petition? Did you think a Cistercian monk was going to scribe it in gold leaf on parchment before tying it to the leg of a carrier pigeon? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) Look, BD signed a petition which had been set up to forward his signature to the petition recipient. Correct. Sending the email was not a nefarious afterthought on the part of SoS; it was done as part of the system setup. Now you've got it; SoS caused the email to be sent to Mr Easdale. He was thus, the sender. NO, he was not, he signed a petition, he didn't knowingly send an email as well. BD's failure to understand how the system works is nobody else's fault. YES, it is; it's the fault of SoS for not making that clear. Furthemore one can only assume that that failure was deliberate, since it is clear from the reaction on here at least that if a lot of signers had known they were also sending an email to Mr Easdale they wouldn't have signed. Whilst various posters have rightly pointed out that Mr Easdale could have avoided or mitigated the worst of the onslaught once he knew about it; it seems to me that Mr Houston set out to cause Mr Easdale maximum inconvenience at the same time as promoting the petition. Edited May 21, 2014 by BrahimHemdani Making MY opinion clear. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 it is equally clear that Mr Houston set out to cause Mr Easdale maximum inconvenience Sorry BH, but that's not clear at all, so let's keep things on the level here please. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Under the Petition itself, where it said: To: Graham Wallace, Rangers Football Club Sandy Easdale, Rangers Football Club Give written legally binding assurances to fans that Ibrox stadium will not be sold or used as security for any loans Sincerely, [Your name] what did you think that meant? How did you think the recipients would receive your petition? Did you think a Cistercian monk was going to scribe it in gold leaf on parchment before tying it to the leg of a carrier pigeon? Like any petition I suspect that BM thought it would be delivered in one or more gigantic boxes not in 10,000 individually gift wrapped boxes tied to the legs of a carrier pigeons whether they fly through the air or cyberspace. I don't think even you believe what you are saying now. As Zappa said your point of view is indeed creative but is also entirely illogical. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Sorry BH, but that's not clear at all, so let's keep things on the level here please. OK I'll amend, it's my opinon. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 You seem to be getting SoS mixed up with the petition platform change.org here for your analogy to work properly because they are the go-between or the carrier like the PO are. Nonetheless, I think you deserve a lot of credit for your alternative viewpoint/explanation here because while it doesn't fix a flawed argument, it's extremely creative and out-of-the-box thinking should always be encouraged! While I do enjoy being patronised as much as the next man, I have to assure you there's no confusion. Change.org provides the infrastructure and hardware but don't themselves utilise that infrastructure. That infrastructure is put at the disposal of the petitioners for the petitioners to make use of. At the risk of analogying everyone to death, it's a bit like Railtrack (change.org) and the Railway companies. (SoS). Change provide the infrastructure to allow SoS to carry out their business - but the fact remains that the passanger should know where he's going before he gets on the train. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 While I do enjoy being patronised as much as the next man, I have to assure you there's no confusion. Change.org provides the infrastructure and hardware but don't themselves utilise that infrastructure. That infrastructure is put at the disposal of the petitioners for the petitioners to make use of. At the risk of analogying everyone to death, it's a bit like Railtrack (change.org) and the Railway companies. (SoS). Change provide the infrastructure to allow SoS to carry out their business - but the fact remains that the passanger should know where he's going before he gets on the train. I was specifically talking about a particular analogy of yours which didn't make sense though. What I wasn't doing was asking for a new one which does make sense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.