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.

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)