People make mistakes, through the best of intentions. Speculation on
rationales, motives, morals, etc. is destructive and should be avoided at
all costs.

But the best way -- in fact the only way -- to avoid speculation is
transparency and open communication. As we have all learned once again.

Non nobis solum

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Giulia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I am an accountant, an attorney, and I worked for the IRS for nearly a
> decade (taxes are fascinating). I think an abundance of caution is an
> understatement.
> On the other hand, I refuse to speculate and stir the pot. Regardless of
> what I think about what's being done I don't think random blame casting
> helps. And I assume people are doing what they think is best, until shown
> otherwise.
> Giulia
> Random Countess and Baroness of the Lonely Tower
> Sent from my Phone
> > On Apr 8, 2014, at 5:22 PM, Lis Schraer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/8/2014 1:55 PM, Mark Schuldenfrei wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I wish I had "speculated" when I'd wanted to - because now I could do
> >> the "I told you so" dance.
> >>
> >> But I'll stand by what I wrote earlier today:
> >>  "Other than to feel confident that this is probably another
> >>  of the many SCA cases where good people in a rule-making
> >>  position, out of a superabundance of caution and a soupcon
> >>  of ignorance, stomp on things "in case there might be a
> >>  problem".
> > I am not a tax attorney, an accountant, or an employee of the IRS, but I
> believe the SCA way overdoes the "private inurement" bit...
> >
> > And by the way, Murdoch, Lynette, and Their Majesties all have my
> deepest sympathy.
> >
> > Elasait, old used BoD member and kingdom seneschal back in the twilight
> ages (not dark ages, because I know people who have been around since the
> dark ages and I ain't them)