Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Anonymity vs. Courage, Honor, and Trust

Doug-
This appears in today's LA Monitor. Would you also please post it at the top level of your blog.
Gary

Anonymity vs. Courage, Honor, and Trust

Dear Editor-

Perhaps we at Los Alamos have succumbed to a failure of courage, honor and trust. Recently I asked those who were anonymously attacking my integrity on "LANL-The-real-story" blog "why are we speaking to each other anonymously?" One of the respondents said that he/she was afraid of retaliation from lab management for comments critical of them. "In a nutshell it would be too dangerous to my family. They depend on me, and the current Lab leadership has demonstrated that they will destroy people who get in their way," Anonymous (1). I wonder if that is the only reason? There have been many scurrilous comments posted on that blog, though Douglas Roberts, the host, has repeatedly asked for civility. Shots fired out of the dark avoid accountability. However, anonymous character assassination loses standing in a fair community when the face of the critic is veiled and character, motivations and legitimacy cannot be evaluated.

The fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence courageously put their lives on the line to sign a document treasonous to England. They would have been hanged if captured. John Hancock signed in extra large script so that King George III would not need his reading glasses to see the signature. Public knowledge of the signer's names and their community standing was necessary to convene a new nation. A democracy is based on individual courage and the aggregate goodness of men. In governments where power is maintained by coercion, fear, and the award of privilege, secrecy is the operating principal. To win the hearts and minds of people, openness is required. Los Alamos National Laboratory requires the commitment as well as the brilliant intellectual ability of scientists, engineers, and support staff to accomplish our crucial mission. Our effectiveness is enhanced by openness and the ability to trust LANL management and each other.

I have worked for outstanding managers. While I have not always agreed with them, I have felt that I could trust them, even with unpopular views. These views have been heard, and sometimes acted on. Trust and candor are crucial to our effectiveness.

It is the nature and disposition of almost all people to misuse power for selfish reasons or to cover up shameful acts. Managers are responsible to hold those unjust inclinations in check. When lab managers err they must hear legitimate criticism and correct mistakes. Lab staff should combine courage with constructive good sense in raising problems through proper channels. One of the most important roles of senior management is to prevent subordinate managers from misusing their power, particularly to cover up wrongdoing. Allowing the cover up of someone's unjust retaliation can stain great managers and decades of wise leadership. When there are public errors, those errors must be corrected in a transparent and public way. Litigation can be minimized when people are acting in good faith to seek just solutions to tough problems.

Conversely, a number of people have used the media's lust for inflammatory contention, the support of our enemies, and whistleblower legal protections to seek vindication in the courts for their own wrong actions, or for the reversal of just disciplinary actions. These people seek fame, wealth, and revenge. Politicians champion some of these cases for political advantage.

John Horne and Todd Kauppila claim to have been unfairly treated in the CREM incident last summer and have published their versions of the experience. LANL management claims that they were justly disciplined. When a conflict involves the stability and wellbeing of an institution as important as LANL, all should have confidence that justice prevails. Perhaps John and Todd should offer to waive their rights of confidentiality regarding relevant personnel records and ask that lab managers publicly present their specific reasons for the actions taken. Then, if there are injustices, in either direction, they can be made right so that trust and honor can be repaired.

Last week a jury awarded $2.1 million to computer technician Dee Kotla in an eight-year-long wrongful-termination litigation with University of California/LLNL (2). UC/LLNL lost the case two years ago and appealed. UC is reported to have justified Kotla's termination for less than $5 in personal use of a lab phone and a few hours spent on non-work items at work. Kotla claimed she was fired for supporting a colleague in a sexual harassment suit against a LLNL manager two months prior to her firing. Litigation costs reportedly exceed $4 million, not counting the jury award. The running cost of this case is a person's career, eight years of many people's lives and $6 million and climbing (all appeals have not been exhausted). Wow! While, I doubt that the managers and lawyers pursuing these cases are blatantly cruel and dishonest, I have to wonder at their lack of wisdom in tarnishing the reputation of a great laboratory and the integrity of many fine managers in dogged pursuit of this dubious case.

UC and its laboratories have developed a reputation for unjust retaliation and vigorous cover-ups. Endless and expensive litigations are designed to exhaust the resources of petitioners. I wonder if even the most upright LANL, LLNL or other UC employee or contractor could feel safe from a determined retaliatory investigation of petty misuse of work resources or time. If $5 is the threshold for firing any employee who stands up against a harassing manager, who will defend justice? If defending oneself in court requires a fortune and nearly a decade, who has the personal and financial stamina? If retaliatory discipline, cover up of management wrongdoing, and unrestrained litigation are the lab's and UC's policies, who can trust them?

In "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People," Stephen Covey points out that it is hard to talk our way out of the bad reputation that we have acted ourselves into. The reestablishment of trust at LANL requires a track record of trustworthy actions by transparent, candid, and just adjudication of disputed personnel cases. This may even require new processes, but LANL has courageously led in less important innovations, so we should not hesitate here. While lawyers may not support trading legal advantage for candor, gains in trust by the laboratory staff would be priceless.

Some effective approaches might include:
* an ethics commitment by senior managers that they will not tolerate retaliation;
* a "fairness board" consisting of management and elected staff representatives who, within the confidentiality of personnel actions, will be able to publicly verify fairness in disputed employee or contractor personnel actions;
* affirmed willingness of lab management to open the books on any disputed personnel action if those disciplined will sign confidentiality waivers; and
* a lab and UC policy that, when dealing with individual employees or contractors, once through the courts is enough, win, lose or draw.

Every laboratory employee has responsibilities too.
* When there are questions about the justness of management actions, ask, listen and try to understand all perspectives.
* Stand up for worthy concerns, raising clear and specific issues through channels.
* Protect the reputation of the laboratory and those we deal with, including managers.
Senior management at the labs, the University of California, and the Department of Energy must also be unrelenting in courage and honor, ensuring that fairness is upheld. A candid, transparent track record of just action will rebuild trust.

Gary Stradling, 123 Canyon Vista, Los Alamos
(1) http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/03/pete-nanos-is-taking-focused-planned.html
(2) http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_2620321


Comments:
Gary may be a stand-up citizen, honest, hard-working and all that, but in describing Nanos as someone who had a well-reasoned, intelligent, well-thought out plan regarding the shutdown and subsequent events, he completely misses the mark. He is welcome to his opinion, of course.

But he's wrong.
 
I am very confused by 12:59's comment - nowhere in Gary's well reasoned and written letter was the mention of the Nanos name. Like many other things these days - let's not read more into something then is actually written. And Gary - thanks for taking the time to offer your perspective, well thought out and well executed.
 
I know Gary only by reputation, but it is that he is honest and forthright. I think his letter is well reasoned and well written. Hopefully the "We all hate Nanos" crowd will give it a careful (and intelligent) reading.
 
I wonder if Gary has really thought this through. He suggests that contributors to the blog should name themselves in the interest of trust and openness. He then goes on to recite the problems of LANL employees who seek justice and end up in the courts where LANL seeks to bankrupt them, following a very predatory legal strategy. Nanos and UC control Lab Legal, not the other way round. Ergo, Nanos and UC will thrash those who seek justice. Does this encourage trust and openness? Come on now.... And, those who end up in courts usually sought justice first in the grievance process, and found it denied. And, don't forget Walp and Doran, who were attacked, by Lab Legal amongst others, when they exposed corruption. Those involved at Lab Legal are still employed, and doing well. What is the message? One of trust and openness? Or that those who speak up will be thrashed, just to make an example of them?
It is commonly known that, when an attitude of distrust and fear prevents open communication, it is up to those who hold the power to make the first move, and to create a safe environment for openness. No such move has been forthcoming from Nanos and UC. Unlike the campuses LANL is not a safe place for employees.
As for managers making a commitment to ethics, they already have. Its one of the points in ISSM. Is it followed, or enforced? I think we all know the answer to that one.
A beginning move would be to reform the editorial policies of the Newsbulletin, where they stopped printing critical letters some time ago, and don't even follow their own stated policies. As Doug says, it is this closing off of dissent in the internal forum which led him to start the blog. Gary may not like the blog, but for now it is a way of getting the truth out. There is also a lot of opinion, but that is the nature of freedom, and blowing off steam which has been capped in the LANL culture. The blog is democracy, straight up, and democracy is always messy.
Kudos to Doug!!
 
"It is the nature and disposition of almost all people to misuse power for selfish reasons or to cover up shameful acts."

Is this the reference to G. Peter Nanos? Was the Shutdown for No Reason done selfishly and covered up shamefully?
 
When Nanos wanted to silence his critics last summer, he used all the resources of the laboratory against them. He ordered e-mail records to be searched to try to find anything that could be used to fire those who dared to opposed him. His senior managers were complicit in his abuse of power.

Do not risk using your own name in these postings!
 
1:21PM --

You should read the references at the bottom of Gary's post:

This one

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/03/pete-nanos-is-taking-focused-planned.html

refers to a letter he wrote to the Los Alamos Monitor:

http://lamonitor.com/articles/2005/03/08/letters/letters01.txt

in which he claims (parapharasing) that Nanos had perfectly good reasons for shutting down the lab and for his subsequent behavior.

I completely disagree with Gary.
 
Any contract that provides unlimited legal reimbursement to the contractor to fight employee lawsuits is an egregious waste of taxpayer money. This effectively allows the government, by proxy, to financially devastate an employee bringing a legitimate suit. What about the recent plutonium exposures at LANL? If the injured workers sue UC for unsafe work practices, this contract provision makes their quest for justice seem hopeless. That is why no one should trust the management and identify themselves, they have never failed to retaliate against good employees for raising legitimate issues.
 
Gary, Quit whining; if you climb up on a soapbox you will get a few tomatoes. "Attacking my integrity"! If the rest of us operated like Nanos you would have been publicly and brutally "cut off at the knees". Be thankful that there is still a core of basic decency left at the Lab. Oh, I too think you mean well, but I also believe you have incorrectly "sized up" the situation.
 
I am the anonymous person that Gary quotes at the top of his editorial. I am the anonymous person that Gary quotes completely out of context. I must admit that Gary’s editorial has a certain ring of gallow’s humor, in a naïve and innocent sort of way. With a little work it could be transformed into a brilliant piece of satire.

Gary opened his editorial with “Perhaps we at Los Alamos have succumbed to a failure of courage, honor and trust. Recently I asked those who were anonymously attacking my integrity on "LANL-The-real-story" blog "why are we speaking to each other anonymously?" One of the respondents said that he/she was afraid of retaliation from lab management for comments critical of them. "In a nutshell it would be too dangerous to my family. They depend on me, and the current Lab leadership has demonstrated that they will destroy people who get in their way," Anonymous (1). I wonder if that is the only reason? There have been many scurrilous comments posted on that blog, though Douglas Roberts, the host, has repeatedly asked for civility. Shots fired out of the dark avoid accountability. However, anonymous character assassination loses standing in a fair community when the face of the critic is veiled and character, motivations and legitimacy cannot be evaluated.”

Everything I originally wrote then still applies, our management’s performance in the last year has earned nothing but contempt. I am not a coward, as Gary seems to imply, or have some hidden agenda. I plainly stated why I didn’t sign my name then and the conditions remain more-or-less the same. The original post in its entirety is reproduced below:

posted by Anonymous : 3/11/2005 06:13:15 AM

“This post started with a simple question, “could I write something here and sign my name? And what are the implications of doing this?” To get to the point, the answer is no. Why is worth some comment.

I agree with Brad’s [Holian] assertion that we should be discussing the future of the Lab. It is vital right now, and it is something that should be a continual dialog. I’ve posted to the blog before on this matter and I’m proud of what I wrote, I’d love to sign my name, so why not?

In a nutshell it would be too dangerous to my family. They depend on me, and the current Lab leadership has demonstrated that they will destroy people who get in their way. I am not in a position where I can afford to cause them harm for the cause of the Lab. I’m sure that my position on this matter says something about the present situation and myself.

If I did sign my name, it would be a temporary boon to my reputation with my peers. Nanos is hated and his departure would be seen as a reason to celebrate among those I associate with. If I said something positive, I would be the object of ridicule and lose the respect of my peers. That says volumes about the current state of affairs as well. I’m sure this situation is repeated all over the Lab. If someone is comfortable with speaking positively about Nanos, it speaks volumes about both the person and their circumstances.

I’ll close with some observations about our leadership past and present. I sat down eye-to-eye with John Browne while he was Director and spoke about a serious management issue, the competence and behavior of people in leadership positions. Years earlier I had a heated e-mail exchange with John when he was an AD, I was a lowly staff member in his directorate. In both cases, I communicated with John without fear or reservation. Pete Nanos does not engender the same level of trust and openness. Anytime I’ve either seen or heard about someone raising an issue with Pete they have their head handed to them (“sit down and shutup!”). I’m fairly certain that John did little to deal with the matter I discussed, but at least he was open to listening and I trusted him enough to relate the problem to him. John’s ineffective management was a problem; Pete’s lack of communication insures that he never will hear about the problems in the first place.

What is worse? You be the judge. Maybe the best way to state the questions is (apologies to Ronald Reagan)

“is LANL better off now, than it was two years ago?””

Gary completely missed the point in his editorial. There is no openness or trust, there is no honesty, and without these the communication lines will continue to be anonymous.

Where Gary is on the mark is the opening line, “Perhaps we at Los Alamos have succumbed to a failure of courage, honor and trust.” I humbly submit to you that the failure of these three virtues has been by none other than Congress, NNSA, UC and most of Lab’s upper management. If I were a lone wolf then I might be tempted to engage in Quixotic quest for trust and justice, and fall on my proverbial sword as Gary suggests I should, but I’ve more or less given up hope that things will turn out positively here. I too have joined the chorus of people who think that Lock-Mart is worth a try as alternative to the continual and accelerating downward spiral we are experiencing under the un-watchful-eye of UC. It could be worse, but this would have to assume that Lock-Mart comes in with malicious intent. Unfortunately this is not outside the realm of probability (anyone who experienced their arrival at INEL might care to comment).

Gary, to use a term Nanos seems to love, just doesn’t get it. That is his right and that is his problem. The rest of us do get it, we’ve been sold down the river by our managers and our government, our best hope is that there will be something worth salvaging when its all said and done.

Anonymously yours, Anonymous
 
I have taken some time to prepare this response to Gary. I wanted to be careful because I do not wish to impugn his motives. Frankly, I do not know exactly what those motives are. He has always been an enigma to me opting to spend a large portion of his career away from the laboratory in Washington. To his credit and about halfway through his posting, Gary correctly begins to scope and define the problem. However, many aspects of his arguments are inconsistent with applicable law, misapply historical events to current situations, and fail to distinguish facts from feelings.

The first point deals with legal aspects of illicit "anonymity" in administrative processes as opposed to licit "anonymity" in this "concerted activity" blog. In the Laboratory's current Case Review Board process, the identities of the accusers are anonymous and their accusations are either withheld or so redacted as to render them useless to developing a defense. The identities of the Case Review Board are also "anonymous." Arguably, this closed process violates the US Constitution. As a state university and as a Federal contractor, the University of California must comply with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. This provision requires that accused individuals, even in administrative processes, be able to confront their accusers and specifically be informed of and given an opportunity to directly rebut their accusations (Reference: Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959)). In response to the Greene case, President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10865, which is still in effect, requiring a hearing in which contractor employees must be given the opportunity to appear before the decision-maker to confront and cross-examine witnesses and attempt to rebut the Government's case. That said, accused individuals need not "waive their rights of confidentiality regarding relevant personnel records or ask that lab managers publicly present their specific reasons for the actions taken." They are under no obligation to do so but the contractor is required to identify its witnesses and the full text of what they have alleged.

The second point deals with history and "anonymity." To conceal their identities, Sons of Liberty dressed up like American Indians and protested the British Stamp Act by dumping British tea into the Boston harbor. Members of this group that rapidly spread throughout the American Colonies survived in anonymity to protect their freedoms, lives and property. By the time the Founding Fathers met to sign the Declaration of Independence openly these anonymous patriots and others of their kind had already ignited the fires of change toward freedom and democracy. Many had careers ended and property confiscated. Some were killed yet historians still know the identities of only a few. Their anonymous identities allowed them protection in the face of a ruthless and abusive enemy. Much earlier, Benjamin Franklin had used the moniker "Poor Richard" to use humor anonymously to educate others about societal problems. Poor Richard advised his readers, "Distrust and caution are the parents of security." Amazingly, that advice still pertains today as the following wisdom appearing in another blog so succinctly stated. "Anonymity is a shield that protects those offering unpopular ideas. An idea, true or false, should stand or fall on its own merits, without regard to the identity of the person presenting it."

The third point tries to provide balance between facts and feelings. Gary seems to feel that our director and the few executives closest to him are not fatally flawed and can be salvaged. He seems to be advocating that through open, courageous and possibly confrontational dialogue the work climate at the laboratory can be remediated, the prospect of success in accomplishing our programmatic obligations can be improved, and a positive outcome of any bid by the University of California to operate Los Alamos can be achieved. The facts unfortunately suggest otherwise. John Horne and Todd Kauppila are but two of over thirty potential litigants with causes of action against the University of California strictly because of questionable actions by the director. Experience has conclusively shown that courageous and confrontational dialogue with the director would only add litigants to that list. Conditions in the workplace would grow more, not less abusive as the director and his closest executives would feel more and more insecure in their positions. The regressively downward spiral in our productivity would accelerate in the wake of new directives and orders that would certainly flow from that executive team. The stand down itself attests to this reality. The bid position of the University of California, already wounded by the indefensible actions and abusive belligerency of the director, would only worsen. In this latter regard, only one action by the University can, even at this late date, turn things in the right direction and that action is not dialogue with the director. So be it.

I hope that I have not offended the innocent in writing this positing. However, I worry about the constant tribulations that my friends and colleagues are moving through at this time. They have helped secure this Nation and indeed the very pillars of civilization upon which it rests by bringing light to the darkest recesses of science. Yet it appears that their work is no longer appreciated by opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats nor supported by the University that gave birth to this place. Now abandoned, their careers and futures stand blindfolded on the gallows of contrived uncertainty. To all who read this posting, please know that they deserve better and, working together, we intend to make it so.
 
To 08:20:04: This is an outstanding commentary. Thank you.
 
I spoke with Gary at some length today about his views on anonymous postings which closely parallel my own. We also spoke about issues where we disagree - for example Nanos' real intentions. I must say that I respect Gary for his honesty and came away with a slightly modified outlook. Nonetheless, my sentiments align very well with the last paragraph of the previous (8:20) post. This is no time in the history of Los Alamos for the faint-of-heart or the selfishly motivated. The place is worth defending - even against the Director - well intentioned or not. Scott Watson
 
From Gary Stradling:
Wow! What a thoughtful response from Anonymous at 4/20/2005 08:20. And such eloquence: "I worry about the constant tribulations that my friends and colleagues are moving through at this time. They have helped secure this Nation and indeed the very pillars of civilization upon which it rests by bringing light to the darkest recesses of science. Yet it appears that their work is no longer appreciated by opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats nor supported by the University that gave birth to this place. Now abandoned, their careers and futures stand blindfolded on the gallows of contrived uncertainty. To all who read this posting, please know that they deserve better and, working together, we intend to make it so." -- There is considerable discouragement and bitterness by some who have been deeply affected by the difficulty and great length of the the restart process. It appears that some of our processes and responsibilities stretch our ability to perform at the level required of us. I hope that all are working to make the restart effective in bettering the institution while meeting the requirements.

To 4/19/2005 12:59 and 4/19/2005 04:57 and others- Disagreement noted; coherence and civility appreciated. I am not a Nanos apologist, as some have claimed. I appreciate his strengths, which are needed during this very turbulent and dangerous time. His weaknesses are real and undermine his effectiveness to accomplish (what I think is) his intent of strengthening LANL, organizing it to make it more effective, giving it a clearer mission and objective, and protecting it from dangers. My point--please focus here--is that he is the director; (you or I are not going to change that, and when we have a new director, as inevitably we must, that director will have flaws too); he is meeting a number of challenges with decisiveness and courage; a "mutiny below decks" endangers the whole ship and will have a lasting effect on our institutional culture and our reputation. It is hard to get all good attributes in a single package. Vision, courage, and decisiveness do not imply personal sensitivity and an even temper. I wish I could accomplish my objectives without my weaknesses getting in the way and would be surprised if the director doesn't feel the same way.

To 4/19/2005 07:03- You must be agreeing with my point, that unrelenting litigation over personnel issues is counter to the Laboratory being the productive, worker congenial institution you and I want it to be. The discussion of legalities by 4/20/2005 08:20 is thoughtful. We would be better served if, rather than immediately believing tales of injustice, the lab community called for a fairness hearing, either in public or before a panel of trusted representatives. The laboratory and the community of laboratory staff suffers a loss of credibility and trust. I would rather be able to establish record of trust thru transparency that only needs infrequent checks.

Anonymity has been used in this blog irresponsibly. Doug Robert's stated intent of offering a forum for uncensored discussion would be better served if he insisted on attribution. I thought he was responding to a lack of prompt posting of concerns in the Newsbulletin, not excessive attribution.

The poster at 4/20/2005 08:20 thoughtfully notes that there have been times in history when worthwhile acts were committed anonymously. Taking that point, there has been thoughtful analysis given on this blog. Poor Richard's observations would be welcome, and could be made with attribution. I respect Brad Lee Holian for his willingness to study out an issue and ask relevant questions, and stand up for his concerns. That is the historical culture of Los Alamos. However, the cloak of anonymity has been used here for hateful, unjustified attacks, which some of you permit (e.g. 4/20/2005 05:47). Yes, 4/20/2005 08:41, you should be able to stand behind your arguments. John Horne and Todd Kauppila were not fired for criticizing management, but for wrong actions, which must be proved publicly in court. Do not use them as an excuse to criticize without accountability.

4/19/2005 07:16- Your logic is that I should be satisfied with bad behavior because it is not as bad as some really bad behavior you have observed? I think that we have an exceptionally decent workforce. I am proud to be associated with them. There are some who seem genuinely puzzled by this firestorm of opinion. They ask: Is it really unsafe to speak? Are the managers really malevolent? Did they crush a few people out of personal whim and do they really hate DX?

It is human nature to attribute problems to malevolence. In my experience, problems are seldom the result of malevolence, but more often are the result of insufficient foresight, organization, process, skill or communication. Our institutional weaknesses might have been tolerable a few years ago, but today our inadequacies stress to the limit our management's ability to navigate the confluence of the turbulent waters we have come into. Were are on the verge of a great opportunity with the RRW initiative. I think we have some hard work to bring our organization and tools to the level needed. DX is and will continue to be needed. Lets put away the anger and distrust and work for the success of the institution. Cut the managers some slack. Recruit better ones, if you can find some. Make constructive suggestions instead of angry attacks.

I have reserved Otowi Cafeteria, side room C, from 11:30 to 1:00 PM next Thursday if any of you would like to join in a discussion.
Gary Stradling
 
"My point--please focus here--is that he is the director; (you or I are not going to change that,"

I bet we are going to change that. In fact, I thnk we already have. The body simply has not stopped breathing yet.
 
Gary
My family would prefer you not jump to such a conclusion in a public forum. I would expect better from you.
Guess not

"John Horne and Todd Kauppila were not fired for criticizing management, but for wrong actions"

Why you would say this? I cannot even imagine

Todd Kauppila
 
I refuse to accept the premise that we should accept and work with any tyrant that fate happen to place in front of us. With that philosophy the descendants of John Hancock would still be bowing to the King. Slavery and segregation would still be the lot of Black Americans. Children would still be running textile factories. We would have to change the Battle Hymn of the Republic to "As He died to make men holy, let us try to make tyrants see." Were that to happen, acres of white grave markers would surely cry out, "That's not the way the song is to be sung."
 
Todd-
I do not mean you any ill will and do not prejudge. I am confident that you perceive these events differently from the managers who fired you. They cited wrong actions on your part. Should we have an open discussion about those events, as I suggested in the Tuesday editorial? Would the Lab be better to break the string of litigation?
Gary
 
Gary
Thanks for the reply and I feel better. In the spirit of your offer of a meeting, I offer another refuge since I am forbidden to cross the bridge. Talk to me in person and then form an opinion.
Todd
 
Hang in there, Todd!
 
"mutiny below decks" Of course there's a mutiny below the decks. To take the metaphor further: our stupid Vice-Admiral opened the sea cocks for six months and it's been damn hard to keep the pumps going. Now the typhoon comes and we've shipped too much water. The mutiny is turning into a rush to the ship's boats. I hope the fool stays on the bridge and the suction pulls him down.
 
Apologies-
John Horne was administratively disciplined, not fired. My error. Gary
 
Gary:
You're in error about a great many things.

John Horne
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?