[Discuss] Kinda weird question.

[Vinnie]

2006/8/1, Justin Licht <mrsneeze659 at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> On 8/1/06, Peter Weisberg <pjweisberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/1/06, AJ <j.anant at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Peter Weisberg wrote:
> > > > On 7/31/06, Alex Davies <the1exile at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >> training/cohesion will increase, and they will be looked on more
> > > >> favourable
> > > >> by the man who made the request in the first place. I also use it
> > too
> > > >> see
> > > >
> > > > This is the #1 reason why requests from the higher-ups are looked on
> > > > the same way as orders.  It's so significant that there's no point
> > in
> > > > discussing other reasons.  Even if the order-giver truly doesn't
> > care,
> > > > people underneath him will think that by complying with all his
> > > > requests they can gain his favor.  There's no way of getting around
> > > > this one.
> > >
> > > And that is the fault of the order giver how? And if they were looked
> > as
> >
> > It's not the king's *fault* that his requests are considered orders.
> > They just are.  There's no point in blaming anyone for the way things
> > are.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribing and other list options:
> > http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>
>
> Requests for higher ups have worked fine for years, it isn't a big issue.
>
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
>

Ha, a cookie. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20060802/3cb1db4e/attachment.htm