Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> when i asked if it was formal, assuming it was so because it had been
> cc:d to the sc ($deity knows why), rob said yes it could be taken that way.
I'm sorry that you misunderstood my communication; obviously I should
have laid it out more carefully. The intent of my email was to say
"If you are asking to be formally warned, I'll take that up with the
MLC and see if we can get something to you in the way of a formal
warning".
I'm sure that the MLC (which I'm no longer part of) would appreciate a
direct answer to that offer so that they can either assume that
Marty's message was taken in the informal, colleague-to-colleague
context in which it was offered, or if you need a formal warning at
this point, get working on that.
---Rob
