[Vision2020] kirk email

[Chasuk]

On 11/8/05, Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote:

> Chas Wrote:

> I'm curious: what would constitute sufficient evidence to haul it into the
> public square?

> Me:

> Ok, perhaps you are right.  This is why I followed up my comment with the
> fact that "at the very least…more judiciously."  Perhaps the implicit
> conclusion behind the presentation of the evidence needed more moderation,
> or perhaps it could have been presented as a fact without any assumed
> conclusion.  What you think?

I don't know, truthfully. I believe that Vision2020 can reasonably be
likened to a "court," at least in the sense that it is a jury of our
peers.  My analogy now makes me wonder: who is the judge?   Scott
Peterson was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence, so we do
have precedent.  In a civil trial, circumstantial evidence is used to
establish liability.  I know, Vision2020 isn't always civil (pun
intended), but doesn't this at least establish Nate's liability, if
not Doug's culpability?

If too much circumlocution and circuitous analogies gives you a
headache, I apologize.  My head is certainly hurting.