Posted on 07/27/2006 9:43:06 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Actually the story by the Portland Press was in agreement with this Op-Ed. Here it is:
http://people.maine.com/paula/pph/pph-2.9b.98.html
Whereas an editorial for FR with no links using much of the story from the Portland Press but leaving out the important details is much more believable?
We don't know the details of the second encounter. We do know that the manager thinks she is doing a lot more than just answering questions. Almost universally, in cases like this one, there is much that does not come out. You can assume it was a simple set up, and I can assume there's a lot more here, for her to be in this kind of trouble, assuming she's a good employee otherwise.
Again, your own posted quotes from news sources indicates that the woman is being approached and put on the spot. That doesn't sound like someone walking from cubicle to cubicle harrassing people. She's the one being harrassed.
If she did what she says she did the first time, then after being counseled she did the same thing again, (not sure what the shouting is), then she is the culpable party.The point is that all of that was omitted from the original editorial. At best, she violated an order from her manager.
How is it so unlikely? The news source you quoted said: "But just before a vote, Selectman Paul Asher-Best questioned whether Childs could serve all of the town, including its gay and lesbian residents, since Childs signed a petition to ban gay marriage.... The board then voted unanimously to appoint Dan Silva to the board instead."
If that's all you read, then of course, you might reach that conclusion, just as with the editorial. But once you read the whole story, you find that there may be some history here having nothing to do with petitions that may have led to the non selection. He was not fired by the way. This same story with all the details omitted was also run by Chuck Colsen.
There were other issues raised, too, but, according to your own source, this particular issue was indeed brought up.
The point being, that according to the editorial, this was the reason. According to the article, it could have, but any objective reader would conclude that at best, it was a small contributing factor, not the reason.
If your own source is correct, then the woman herself is being targeted. She's not running around the office. "Going to hell unless you repent" is a part of Christian doctrine. If they didn't want the woman to answer honestly about her beliefs, they shouldn't have approached her and asked the question.
Again, an objective reader would ask a lot of questions first before reaching a conclusion such as in this editorial. We don't know the nature of the second encounter, but we do know Kiilde violated the order by the manager.
I would argue against a story, too, if that were the case. But, so far, this Op-Ed passes the test.
It only passes the test for those who want it to for whatever reason. By leaving out all of the details of both stories, just like the David Parker stories, they are meant to inflame, not inform. I have run into many such stories by minorities filing complaints, only to learn that their version either was patently untrue or left out substantial parts so as to completely lead to a different conclusion. Both of these stories lead the reader to conclude that reverse discrimination took place, when in fact it likely did not in either case.
Op-Eds aren't supposed to be "objective". Op-Eds express an opinion. But, in reality, news articles aren't entirely objective, either. And, though you may believe that you are, no one is entirely objective, though we may strive to be.
You posted only a portion of the Kiilde article (which also was an editorial). The rest (see link in post #42) refers to Portland's "gay rights ordinance" as a contributing factor to Kiilde's case. The article is intended as a warning to Maine against adopting a similar "gay rights" state law.
Now, if Kiilde had posted harrassing messages on the company bulletin board, for example, or if she was giving unsolicited religious advice to her coworkers, I would agree that she should stop or be fired.
But, if she's the one being approached and questioned, as she said and the personnel director never really denied (neither of us knows how the "yelling" started), then she's the one being harrassed.
As for the Childs story, I stated in my first post: "As for the additional details the Op-Ed included about the Childs' story, I don't know. But, the text you pulled from the news source agrees that he was confronted by one of the selectman about the issue."
So, the fact is, it was raised as an issue before the vote. The Freeper's Op-Ed doesn't say Childs was "fired". It says he was "booted from the board," and the article you posted agrees that he wasn't "re-appointed". Both articles also agree that, before the vote was cast, the issue of "gay marriage" was indeed raised.
Interesting you would only note your experiences with "minorities" filing complaints that turned out to be untrue. (Plenty of "non-minorities" do the same). In the Kiilde story, other employees were filing against her.
All stories are tainted by the people telling them. But, it comes down to this: A person's position on "gay marriage" has become an acceptable issue to raise in selecting members for a Board of Fire Engineers. Ridiculous.
No, op-eds are not objective, but when based on a news story or several, to take pieces of each to construct what in all likelihood is simply untrue is wrong by any standard.
You posted only a portion of the Kiilde article (which also was an editorial). The rest (see link in post #42) refers to Portland's "gay rights ordinance" as a contributing factor to Kiilde's case. The article is intended as a warning to Maine against adopting a similar "gay rights" state law.
The distinction is that the articles, both of them, referred directly to others involved in the "incidents", and told a story that was completely excluded from the op-ed, which were not only relevant, but would likely not have achieved the desired result by the author. I fail to understand how almost all of us here on FR can tear up the MSM for doing what we perceive to be the very same thing, and then defend "our side" when it's done.
Now, if Kiilde had posted harrassing messages on the company bulletin board, for example, or if she was giving unsolicited religious advice to her coworkers, I would agree that she should stop or be fired.
But if she was screaming from her cubicle that people were going to hell, it's ok?
But, if she's the one being approached and questioned, as she said and the personnel director never really denied (neither of us knows how the "yelling" started), then she's the one being harrassed.
Point being that certainly there is more to the story, and I suspect there's a history there. Of course, the personnel director will not give out everything, but for sure, it will come out one day, just as the David Parker BS did.
As for the Childs story, I stated in my first post: "As for the additional details the Op-Ed included about the Childs' story, I don't know. But, the text you pulled from the news source agrees that he was confronted by one of the selectman about the issue."
I didn't deny that there may have been some discussion on that issue, just that the op-ed made that the only issue that caused him to lose his job, which he didn't, nor was that apparently the main issue. Again, the point is that the op-ed was intended to take a small piece which by itself seems bad until you put it into context. The intent was to inflame, not inform, as I said before.
So, the fact is, it was raised as an issue before the vote. The Freeper's Op-Ed doesn't say Childs was "fired", or "non-reappointed". It says he was "booted from the board," and the article you posted agrees that he wasn't "re-appointed". Both articles also agree that, before the vote was cast, the issue of "gay marriage" was indeed raised.
The op-ed made the issue of gay marriage the cause, and the real story indicates it may well have been something else entirely.
Interesting you would only note your experiences with "minorities" filing complaints that turned out to be untrue. (Plenty of "non-minorities" do the same). In the Kiilde story, other employees were filing against her.
Which certainly indicates a history with Kiilde. My point was that in my experience, minorities file complaints far more than do non-minorities. Non-minorites usually file as a reverse discrimination complaint. I once dealt with two women who several years earlier had been to a party where off color jokes were told. They said nothing, but began a series of complaints, none which could in any way be verified. We hired experts to come in and assist, but in the end, they filed with EEOC and each was awarded $300k for a continuing pattern of harassment. The EEOC judge believed that they simply could not be making it all up. They were, and it paid off handsomely.
All stories are tainted by the people telling them. But, it comes down to this: A person's position on "gay marriage" has become an acceptable issue to raise in selecting members for a Board of Fire Engineers. Ridiculous.
We really don't know exactly how, if at all, that played into it. But if he goes to court, the burden of proof will be on him. Then, if it turns out he is telling the truth, I will be right there with you. Until then, no.
Had this come from the left, it would have been laughed off the board. I sense while our motivations may be on the right side of the issue, our tactics are no different from the left.
Whether or not these stories are "likely" or "unlikely" is a matter of opinion. We each base our opinions on our own experiences - as you did with the comment about "minority" complaints filed - and my experience leads me to hold the opinion that the stories as told here are likely.
I fail to understand how almost all of us here on FR can tear up the MSM for doing what we perceive to be the very same thing, and then defend "our side" when it's done.
The difference is that "MSM" news sources - such as primetime evening news programs, CNN, MSNBC - set themselves up as the more objective, trustworthy sources. But their news has a slant, too. You expect a "conservative" or a "liberal" rag to have a slant. But the people who claim to only report the facts are not doing so. Btw, I'm not a fan of FOXNews, either, for that very reason.
But if she was screaming from her cubicle that people were going to hell, it's ok?
That's not what your article says she was doing. The personnel director said she was "yelling" but didn't say what she was yelling. It's hard to imagine someone yelling at their coworkers that they would go to hell. I guess anything is possible, but not likely, unless the woman is insane. I have witnessed people telling other people to "go to hell," but the article doesn't say what she allegedly yelled. It's possible that she was approached, and when the coworker didn't like her response, a heated discussion ensued, and then she yelled something. But what? That's anyone's guess...
the op-ed made that the only issue that caused him to lose his job, which he didn't, nor was that apparently the main issue.
We don't know what they were thinking. The man believes it was the main reason. They insist otherwise, but who knows.
Like I said, I don't know about the other details in the Op-Ed, for example the selectman allegedly accusing Childs of believing that he must be "less than fully human." That's up to the writer to back that up. But the fact that the issue was raised at all is enough for me. I don't think it's a valid issue to raise.
He was a boardmember, and he wasn't re-appointed. I would call that losing your job. But I guess you could say that, technically, since he was up for re-election, he wasn't actually a board member at that moment with a job to lose.
About the story of the two women filing discrimination charges and suing, I don't consider women "minorities". We're in the majority. So I didn't quite follow what you were saying. Yes, I would agree that a "protected class" is more likely to file complaints. In the Kiilde case, it was a "protected class" filing complaints, or at least coworkers filing complaints on behalf of the "protected class".
I understand the value in checking the validity of a story. I myself have checked into stories that turned out not quite up to par. So, when I saw your post, I was interested to see what the rest of the story was. But I don't think the articles you posted refute enough of the Op-Ed to discredit it. That's my opinion.
We know about Dan Rather and several others including the CNN story concerning the Special Forces in Vietnam, and we know that in both cases, it was pretty likely that producers knew they were probably not true. The op-ed piece we are discussing here was based on two stories from Chuck Colsen written with the very same thirst for truth. Both were written to influence the activists in a certain way, which they would not if the whole stories were told. So they take only certain words and parts made out to make heroes out of questionable employees. If you believe this version over the two that actually quote other employees and managers, then fine, the author achieved his goals.
That's not what your article says she was doing. The personnel director said she was "yelling" but didn't say what she was yelling. It's hard to imagine someone yelling at their coworkers that they would go to hell. I guess anything is possible, but not likely, unless the woman is insane.
Screaming, yelling, ok word parse me. The issue is whether that part of the story is relevant, which of course it is. It demonstrates that there is likely much more than we were led to believe in the op-ed, or in Colsen's stories. That is the point. It would lead most to question the op-ed, which you do not do.
It's possible that she was approached, and when the coworker didn't like her response, a heated discussion ensued, and then she yelled something. But what? That's anyone's guess...
But of course, all of that raises many questions, and your decision that she was set up twice seems to lack from any supporting information.
We don't know what they were thinking. The man believes it was the main reason. They insist otherwise, but who knows.
Point being that without the other information, the two "victims" stories sound plausible. With the other information, the two stories sound far more improbable than probable. Yet Colsen and the op-ed author write them as if they are absolutely true.
He was a boardmember, and he wasn't re-appointed. I would call that losing your job. But I guess you could say that, technically, since he was up for re-election, he wasn't actually a board member at that moment with a job to lose.
Exactly. But if he was not reelected because of the other issues, isn't that relevant?
About the story of the two women filing discrimination charges and suing, I don't consider women "minorities". We're in the majority. So I didn't quite follow what you were saying.
Females are a protected group. When I indicated I had seen a number of minorities involved in the same kind of scenarios as the two people we are discussing, I didn't intend to limit the discussion to them.
Yes, I would agree that a "protected class" is more likely to file complaints. In the Kiilde case, it was a "protected class" filing complaints, or at least coworkers filing complaints on behalf of the "protected class".
Apparently so, though there is not enough information. There is enough for me to look at Kiilde with a wary eye though. I would bet she has a history that is playing in here, and of course, the personnel manager cannot discuss that.
I understand the value in checking the validity of a story. I myself have checked into stories that turned out not quite up to par. So, when I saw your post, I was interested to see what the rest of the story was. But I don't think the articles you posted refute enough of the Op-Ed to discredit it. That's my opinion.
And Dan Rather and his ex-producer both say that the there was insufficient evidence to discredit his story too. So I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Nuff said.
What Dan Rather did was bring forth what turned out to be a phony document, and he claimed it was real. That's very different from the stories we're discussing.
In these stories, the accounts (so far) agree that certain events occurred. What we can't do is read people's thoughts, and we didn't witness the events personally. But we know one man was not re-appointed after an issue was raised publicly about his stance on "gay marriage". And we also know that complaints were filed against the woman by her coworkers. All accounts agree on those facts.
Of course, you're free to draw your own conclusions, and I'm free to draw mine. You've drawn the conclusion that Kiilde and Childs' stories are far too questionable. I'm drawing the conclusion that they're probably pretty accurate. The Op-Ed writer believes their stories entirely. We're all making judgement calls.
Maybe we see things differently for this very reason: In my opinion, the idea that marriage should be redefined as a legal union between two people of any gender is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever put forth. And the fact that anyone can be discredited or penalized for opposing that idea is even crazier. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
I've always opposed laws that violate the privacy of consenting adults. I also happen to favor the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (which puts me in the minority here) because any other policy smacks of the Thought Police, imho.
But with this new movement to redefine - no, destroy - marriage... Reality has been turned upside down. Sometimes change is good. Sometimes a complete overhaul is necessary. But, with this new movement, too many people are thinking about "feelings" without any thought of consequences.
So, the fact alone that this issue can even be raised at a board meeting for Fire Engineers, for example, means things have really gone too far.
Maybe you see it all differently...
That is the essence of my point. The op-ed and the Colsen reports failed to mention any of those points in context. And in failing to do so, drew a conclusion that could not have been drawn if all the information was there. You might think it has to do with their stance on homosexuality, but you could not logically draw that conclusion. WND does that all the time. It's almost impossible to find a WND report that passes the laugh test. Why do you suppose the other information was left out?
Of course, you're free to draw your own conclusions, and I'm free to draw mine. You've drawn the conclusion that Kiilde and Childs' stories are far too questionable. I'm drawing the conclusion that they're probably pretty accurate. The Op-Ed writer believes their stories entirely. We're all making judgement calls.
That's because the op-ed writer wants to believe it, and so I presume do you. They fit in well with agenda driven folks. It is no different from the left. They listen to someone who has been freed from Guantanamo tell them that horrible torture goes on there. All of the officers working there say something else. Who does the left believe? Of course. Same thing.
Maybe we see things differently for this very reason: In my opinion, the idea that marriage should be redefined as a legal union between two people of any gender is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever put forth. And the fact that anyone can be discredited or penalized for opposing that idea is even crazier. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Well, I don't agree with same sex marriages, but of course that is up to the state. But that's my point, in the two stories I took exception to, the issue is whether enough information exists to draw a logical conclusion, not whether your agenda is against same sex marriages. 75% of Americans are against same sex marriages, but that should not give them carte blanche to disobey rules or orders simply because that's their position.
I've always opposed laws that violate the privacy of consenting adults. I also happen to favor the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (which puts me in the minority here) because any other policy smacks of the Thought Police, imho.
As do I, except that as a retired military officer, the don't ask policy makes no sense as a labeled policy. It's always been that way in the military as a default. Keep quiet and unless information comes out no one is going looking.
But with this new movement to redefine - no, destroy - marriage... Reality has been turned upside down. Sometimes change is good. Sometimes a complete overhaul is necessary. But, with this new movement, too many people are thinking about "feelings" without any thought of consequences.
What has destroyed marriages is that 11 million people live together outside of marriage, 50% of first time marriages end in divorce, and 60% of second time marriages end in divorce. Millions of children are living in single parent homes. Same sex marriages in Massachusetts had nothing to do with that.
What has destroyed marriages is that 11 million people live together outside of marriage, 50% of first time marriages end in divorce, and 60% of second time marriages end in divorce. Millions of children are living in single parent homes. Same sex marriages in Massachusetts had nothing to do with that.
But it'll be the final nail in the coffin as the definition of marriage is changed in other states.
Why do you suppose the other information was left out?
It's up to the writer to defend his Op-Ed. I'm just giving my opinion: There were more than two stories told in that Op-Ed. Mentioning every detail wouldn't have been an Op-Ed - it would've been just another article. I just think you're missing the point of what an Op-Ed is supposed to be. The writer didn't lie, that I can tell. He just expressed a point of view using information, as it appears, from other articles.
Other articles tell similar stories. For example, right here. It looks like that is the article the Op-Ed depended on. (I see Asher-Best is comparing himself to a "black man" and the gay marriage movement to the Civil Rights movement - yes, MLK and others are turning in their graves once again).
This is the article you must've found.
You probably know that gay advocates have opened a website naming all the signers of the anti-gay marriage petition in Massachusetts. Here it is, that website, "Knowthyneighbor.org," praising Paul Asher-Best right here for his "guts." Asher-Best admitted that he found Childs' name on that website - that's how he knew Childs signed the petition.
And here's another one on the same website, but the article is copied from the Cape Cod Times. This one says two other selectman criticized Asher-Best's inquiry. And boardmembers said they "just wanted new faces on the panel." (Do you buy that they "just wanted new faces"?)
Other articles point to friction between Childs and other board members.
But I think I'm drawing a very logical conclusion that his signature on that petition was considered in the vote. It may not have been the only reason, but this story happened in Massachusetts where the gay lobby is the strongest and there is a large gay population. This isn't a great leap in logic here.
Yes much has changed since 1993. I think that was Clinton's first act, IIRC. Today there is far more acceptance of homosexuals in society than even back then. And though I don't like it, they will one day be accepted into the military. I don't like women in combat or combat support roles either.
But it'll be the final nail in the coffin as the definition of marriage is changed in other states.
I don't really see that happening if you look at the polls on marriage and all of the decisions coming down from both federal and state courts. Nor do I see it impacting traditional marriages one way or another. I can't see someone opting out of marriage because a state permits gay marriages. Nor can I see a married couple deciding to divorce because of it.
It's up to the writer to defend his Op-Ed. I'm just giving my opinion: There were more than two stories told in that Op-Ed.
Yes, I did not do a verification on the other two mainly because they were events outside of the Country. But I suspect I would find the same thing there, something relevant left out that would have the tendency to lead a reader to another conclusion.
It's up to the writer to defend his Op-Ed.
My initial post was to the op-ed writer, but he did not try to defend it.
I just think you're missing the point of what an Op-Ed is supposed to be. The writer didn't lie, that I can tell. He just expressed a point of view using information, as it appears, from other articles.
Most legitimate op-eds do not take a few pieces leaving out completely relevant information to mislead. They are written to persuade, not to mislead. But you are right, many do, especially if the op-ed writer is totally immersed in an issue. Immigration comes to mind. World Net Daily, however tries to make believe it's a news organization and does exactly the same thing in its news articles. It is totally immersed in its beliefs and biases and plays to its readers who are similarly biased.
With all of that, a fair reader will question op-eds and at least search for the truth.
We have a Democratic party chairman who sends in letters and an occasional op-ed. They are of course always similar to this one, using only the pieces of a situation that suits him and permits him to draw conclusions that could not conceivably be drawn if he had included the whole story. I frequently challenge him in letters to the editor. He is a hit and run expert, and never responds.
Other articles tell similar stories. For example, right here. It looks like that is the article the Op-Ed depended on.
You notice how she doesn't even mention all of the other information, because it would tend to negate her final conclusion.
Mentioning every detail wouldn't have been an Op-Ed - it would've been just another article.
Leaving out critical information however is misleading, and not a prerequisite for an op-ed.
You probably know that gay advocates have opened a website naming all the signers of the anti-gay marriage petition in Massachusetts. Here it is, that website, "Knowthyneighbor.org," praising Paul Asher-Best right here for his "guts." Asher-Best admitted that he found Childs' name on that website - that's how he knew Childs signed the petition.
I don't like those kind of activities...putting names on websites, but I'm sure you understand that both the right and left do it in a variety of issues. It's been done here repeatedly. More difficult now that the mods are cracking down. And look at the motivations. The gays do believe that was a causal factor. The anti-gays want to believe the same for a completely different reason.
And here's another one on the same website, but the article is copied from the Cape Cod Times. This one says two other selectman criticized Asher-Best's inquiry. And boardmembers said they "just wanted new faces on the panel." (Do you buy that they "just wanted new faces"?)
I would tend to believe it because he said he disagreed with Asher's vote. And as has been pointed out, the board has had other issues with Childs.
But I think I'm drawing a very logical conclusion that his signature on that petition was considered in the vote. It may not have been the only reason, but this story happened in Massachusetts where the gay lobby is the strongest and there is a large gay population. This isn't a great leap in logic here.
We only know that Asher voted against him, but the leap in logic is to ignore other factors which appear to have been critical to the decision, and not "suggest" but "conclude" that it was his petition signing. That is the leap of faith. Take care.
The latest rulings are hopeful. But we're still on shaky ground. The DOMA is only an act, not a permanent form of protection.
Nor do I see it impacting traditional marriages one way or another. I can't see someone opting out of marriage because a state permits gay marriages. Nor can I see a married couple deciding to divorce because of it.
I never said it would lead people to divorce, unless they already lean in that direction. But, it will ruin it for the next generation. There's another generation growing up, and the gay lobby has been focusing its efforts on it via the TV and other media. Homosexual behavior is taught as an acceptable form of behavior in many schools, and the people who engage in it have been given special victim status. It is being taught as a viable option, and even parents are buying into it.
Well, I think we've taken this one to the end. You take care, too.
Yep. But that didn't happen here.
I'd like to thank Tired of Taxes for a spirited defense that has left me little else to say. But of course, if my integrity as a writer is being challenged, I need to respond and elaborate a bit.
The only difference between Harmon's account and mine is that he detailed the situation more fully. The basic facts are in agreement. Perhaps you concluded (quite reasonably) that when I put "hostile work environment" in quotes I was quoting someone; in reality, I was using the quotes to point up the specious nature of the charge. Looking back, I should have put "so called" in front of it instead of the quotes. As for the reasons the company is taking the actions, that's a solid conclusion from context. To believe otherwise, I would have to assume very despicable things about the management of the firm.
The bottom line? Kiildi was targeted by fellow employees because she is a Christian, her company went along, and the environment in which this could happen was created by the Portland City Council. Also on the bottom line is this: she put her job on the line to tell this story, and that means credibility.
This is slightly off-topic, but I think it should be said: I think Kiildi would have been perfectly within bounds as a Christian if she had refused to speak about these issues with the second co-worker. A person asking about their soul only in order to persecute you is not a person who is looking for truth, so there is no obligation to give them any. Being on trial or in a situation where you're not sure of the person's motives is quite different.
As far as Childs goes, I was unaware of the chain of command dispute, which did not appear in the stories I saw. Thanks for making me aware of it. I still stand behind my point, however. Check out the statements by Asher-Best in Maggie Gallagher's column about the issue. Sorry I'm linking to a blog, it was the first version I came across that wasn't asking an archive fee. He certainly sounds to me like somebody who bagged somebody else. As for the rest of the board, if you did something like that would you trumpet it (or let the guy back on the board and say "Sorry about that persecution thing") or just pretend you had another reason? No matter what their reasons were, the fact remains that someone attempted to destroy a good man's public reputation, using a web site that gay activists set up just to make this sort of thing easier. As my point was "Gay activists will persecute you for thinking for yourself," my point stands.
There was no changing of facts. There was no use of facts out of context. I stand by this piece completely.
Jesus warned that the world would hate his followers. If the world is comfortable with what Christians are saying, thats's a good sign the Christians are preaching a watered-down Gospel.
I'm wondering what's next on their agenda. They get gay "marriage", then what? I'm afraid to ask.
I keep thinking of the David Parker child beating episode that was reported much as these incidents were. And we all now know how that turned out. Anyway, thanks for the response, and though we agree to disagree, it is with good intentions on both sides.
Take care.
Thank you. I know you were being fair and you were standing for the truth. Take care yourself.
100% true. That said, we need to stop this crap because it is a threat to the American way of life.
I think the next step is to make criticism of the gay lifestyle virtually impossible through speech codes. For certain they will push to have schools teach that homosexuality is normal and healthy, because after all, it's legal for these folks to marry...
Families are the bricks of our civilization, and the goal of the Left is to change them into gummiy bricks.
Yes, we have gay activist & Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl here in California who is trying to do just that. Push legislation to that effect.
From Wikipedia:
She ... recently sponsored a bill that would require history textbooks used in California's public schools to highlight the contributions of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people in California's history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.