Re: Well, at least I was there
- From: Mike Holmans <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:45:25 +0100
On 29 Jul 2005 22:00:22 -0700, "FRAN" <fran_beta@xxxxxxxxxxx> tapped
the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>> The great thing is that you a) either believe that the above is what Mike
>> and
>> I said,
>
>It's a fair reading of the substance of your claim, which amounts to an
>assertion that Lee is, in some way, constrained from meeting the
>standard I set out by the failure of others to achieve it in great
>numbers.
No, it's a mischievous or idiotic reading, according to taste.
We are arguing about the reasonableness of the standard you set.
According to you, Lee will only have justified his selection if he
achieves something which would put him in the top 1-2% of potential
comparators.
You are, of course, entitled to set whatever standard you like, but
were anyone to be fired from their employment for not justifying their
hiring because they did not reach a standard which 98% of people do
not reach, most courts would consider that an unfair dismissal.
Nobody is saying that Lee *cannot* achieve your target. What we are
saying is that if he does it will have been an amazing performance
rather than one which merely "justifies his spot".
Cheers,
Mike
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Well, at least I was there
- From: FRAN
- Re: Well, at least I was there
- Prev by Date: Re: Billy's Back
- Next by Date: Venu Rao's debut
- Previous by thread: Re: A brief history ... from Cricinfo
- Next by thread: Re: Well, at least I was there
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|