>>> Thanks for the quick and careful reply. After reading your note, I >>> think everything was done correctly and with the right timing up to >>> the point that Adrian indicated he was willing to continue. After >>> that, it would have been a reasonable option to ask him if he was >>> willing to extend for some months as necessary to let other things >>> settle down before you launched the feedback period. >> >> when one dos not acknowledge that there are serious underlying >> problems, it is easiest to deflect and claim paper rituals [0]. >> >> [0] - for an amazing, ans thankfully unrelated, exercise of this form >> of denial, see mit and harvard dealing with the epstein issue. > > Had the Media Lab followed MIT's policies, it would have regarded > Epstein as disqualified [1] and not dealt with him, thus saving them > the current trouble. If anything, the Media Lab example calls for > less disregard for rules that are designed to keep institutions on > track. those rules are for when common sense and ethics have failed. as i said, when one dos not acknowledge that there are serious underlying problems, it is easiest to deflect etc. or subvert the guidelines and play weasel with the paperwork. randy
