@lyhargr_0 wrote:
@k1ooo-slr-sales wrote:
@lyhargr_0 wrote:
Why the need for SECRECY ? ........... I find that tad weird
lyhargr, only replying to you to answer your question. The bulk of this reply is just to inform others about that process some of us were involved in.
As has been stated, while the ‘discussions’ were going on we were asked to not discuss it outside of that discussion thread. The exact quote from that thread was:
I’m really looking forward to hearing from you all, oh and please, for the next week or so keep this between us. I’ll let you know when we’re ready to do a general announcement.
Yet it took FOUR yrs for the "stalking one" to say anything. Given I have NO IDEA what she said or didnt say at this SECRET meeting, nor do I really care, so I owe her NOTHING.
@lyhargr_0 wrote:
Yet it took FOUR yrs for the "stalking one" to say anything.
This whole thing has only now been made public because four years have passed, and this thread made the revelation relevant at this time. Without this thread there would not have been any point in raising this.
To me this speaks volumes about the character of stawks . . . not wanting to grandstand and big note herself when CS was kept after the restructure. As with those who were invited to that thread, confidences were kept until sufficient time has passed. Even confidential cabinet documents are revealed after enough time has passed to make revealing their contents a non-issue.
Even on this thread stawks didn’t look to promote the pivotal role she played in saving the keeping of CS . . . it was I that revealed that.
If you’ve got any questions about what I contributed to that discussion then ask me. I will not reveal specific details about what other posters contributed, and I won’t reveal the IDs of those not yet identified as being an invitee.
7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
