MEG's Answers to Tom

[Tom Wall]

Sorry - again, my time is short... I will be drafting a response 
eventually, but I thought that it would be best to respond to one 
thing immediately.

Me (in list of questions:
> Given these questions regarding the MEG policy that Debbie posted 
to
> FAQ on Wednesday morning regarding FAQ, please revise said policy
> and have the liaison repost it to the FAQ list. If MEG declines to
> do this, please explain why.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're saying here, Tom.

Tom:
Sorry. Mea Culpa.

Obviously, I had, well, we'll say "difficulty" understanding 
MEG's "policy statement" that Debbie posted here on, um, last 
Monday, was it? Anyways, since I didn't understand the statement, I 
asked all of these questions, some of which have been answered, and 
some of which have not. Clearly, if the statement was completely 
transparent was self-evident, then I wouldn't have had to ask the 
questions in the first place. Right?

Since my questions were concerning specific clauses in the "policy 
statement," and since "policy statements" should be clear - 
otherwise, what's the *purpose* of the policy statement in the first 
place - I have requested, and request again, that MEG takes the 
answers that have been provided to my questions - and Cindy's 
questions, where relevant - and substitute MEG's new answers for the 
originally unclear clauses in the first statement.

Obviously, I'm asking that this be done so that whenever a policy 
debate comes up later on - and I think it's safe to point out that 
they will, as *I* for one don't intend to go anywhere, despite MEG's 
urgings to the contrary; be assured that my continued presence will 
mean that MEG will occasionally have to answer questions - we can 
refer to one coherent document in order to find the answer.

I imagine that it would be much easier to consult a single MEG-
policy document in our Files section than it would be to trav\ce our 
steps backwards through the archives in order to find the original 
post and all these subsequent threads, or to re-ask the same 
questions over and over again. The latter, of course, would be a 
waste of everyone's time, and it would be much easier if the 
originally-posted (and at best "Vague") policy was revised in light 
of the questions I asked, and the answers I was given.

Succinctly: please take your answers to my questions, and substitute 
them for the unclear clauses in MEG's original policy-statement, so 
that it is clear what our newfound relationship is.

Make sense now? If not, please let me know.

Having fun,
Tom