RugbyD wrote: Art Vandelay wrote:
RugbyD wrote:..and so there is nothing voluntary about this. The end result is X. For something to be volutary, the potential outcome must include something other than X.
Right. I guess I just don't understand what makes this unique, or why it stands out. Officials saying "we want X. Do it 'voluntarily' on your terms, or you're going to have to do it on our terms" happens at every level of government. I follow the Ag Dept. fairly closely, and similar "requests" certainly happend under Schaffer, and I would assume under every Ag Secretary.
You don't find anything wrong with blatant dishonesty like this? I'm not saying it's unique, it's just the principle...
I guess if you're hung up on the dictionary definition of "voluntary" I guess you could call it dishonesty but I don't see any hidden agenda or anything here. Probably not the best choice of words, but it all depends on how you read it (or how you want
to read it). Besides, there's no need to vilify them for a single word when it's pretty clear what the message is.
Last edited by Neato Torpedo on Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rocinante2: you know
Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team
ofanrex: go on
Rocinante2: i'm done