That doesn't mean there is some nefarious miscommunication or plans at work.
Hello, Richard. thank you for your comment.
I must point out that in my message, i did not say "nefarious", nor did I say malicious, deliberate or even intentional. Nor was any such implication intended, ironically enough. That is entirely your inference here and I rather take offense at you doing so. It is
entirely possible to miscommunicate due to such reasons as incompetence, poor management practices or simple forgetfulness, and
that is entirely free of nefariousness or criminal intent. Hanlon's razor applies here is basically what I'm trying to say.
The episode I was referring to ( The independent one ) appears to be a good example; Someone was not given information they should have received, which led to someone being misinformed about a change in company policy. This does
not argue that the lack of information was deliberate, intentional, criminal, motivated by sinister agendas or any such. I meant to imply that sometimes it seems from the outside that when the decisions and changes are made within the company, those changes don't always seem to get to people with a need to know in a timely fashion.
I've worked in companies where that has happened; it's rarely ever malicious, it just happens until clear channels are established.
And to make myself clear, this entire comment did not mean to imply any skullduggery on anyone's part at Weyland or Warcradle, and please do
not infer that I want to sit anyone there down and play a different Nolan sisters record into each of their ears until their head explodes, or anything else you might accuse me of
