Dear Customer (name blocked for privacy),
some how I think we missed one. I though you were out of town until today. Any way welcome back.
Question Three: Look Customer (name blocked for privacy), you need to change your quesions a bit. I do not mean to be critical of how your are asking questions, but if you are preparing for a legal battle, asking value based questions about honesty and integrety are highly controversal and refutable. You give me question choices that are objectively based for refutable value based situations. They do not match.
For example: An honest and ethical invetigator, may have reason to believe the statements are autobiographical statements of fact. When ever a person places lore and literature in the view of others, whether it is in public view or in a membership view, they are subjecting thier writings to interpretation of others. IN order to state that they were dishonest and unethical, we would have to prove that they are purposely and maliciously interpreting the evidence as fact while knowing that they are not. This is something the attornies in any defamation case would argue in court. An investigator has to make some assumptions bout the veracity of information posted for others to view, whether or not they are posted by the author them selves or their typist. From the first posting, it represents you, so it must be true, you said it, or wrote it, right? The issue does not rise until that investigator starts tampering with the evidence. When the ivestigator finds out that you have been misquoted by your own typist and that you have moved the stuff to the dead file, then at that point, starts tampering with your written works, now he is in the area where I can say he is unethical, and incompetent, and his word would not be trustworthy. I am still not ready to say honest or dishonest. Those two words are to subjective and are highly refutable; they carry a different connotation.
You are proceeding, based on your own interpretation of the situation, from your perspective as if this is true.
So if the person is purposely changing the information, and if they are purposely and malicously mis-interpreting, then yes, I would say that your second choice answer is it.
(3-2). No, an .....(honest deleted) ethical, competent (added) and impartial investigator would NOT claim that everything written on USENET, including typos and errors, would represent autobiographical claims by the author (they would realize that typos and errors sometimes occur and allow the auther to offer an explanation or otherwise refute the claim) they would give equal weight to all evidence.
QUESTION 4:
4-1). In my expert opinion, and based upon the evidence you have provided herein, I believe your typist's reply to Chip, which was posted by her based upon your instructions to her, was in context about Purple Heart ID cards provided by the Veterans Administration and not about Medals.
Special NOTE: It occurs to me, a peson in court would be asked to examine a replica or copy, or actual card in question. While I have seen such a card in the past, I have not seen them in recent time. It has been over 7 years since I last saw the Veterans ID car of which we are speaking. I tried to find one on the internet and in the National Archive in order refresh my memory of it. I know what you say to be true, because I have seen the cards. The VA used to give the ID card in order to be used for obtaining medical benefits for service and combat related injuries. The true reason for the purple heart on the card, was it was assumed by the VA, incorrectly that every person who got wounded in battle was a purple heart recipient. However this is not true. The different services have very strict rules about how a peson can qualify for a purple heart medal. there is also some command influence over this issue.
For example: In Army Lore, we know that there have been incidents of person getting cut by a C-ration opener, and getting the purple heart. On the other hand, many battles or fire fights and other kinds of contact with the enemy have occurred where persons were injured, and at least one may not have been given a purple heart medal.
Take the Marine corps for example. During Vietnam, in order to get the purple heart, the marine had to also be eligible for the combat action ribbon. However such criteria during vietnam dependent on an MOS where some MOS's were not eligible unless they were in a certain number of fiirefights, or firefights of a certain intencity or duration, etc. The law was changed along the way so that the award of the purple heart does not necessarily result in a Combat Action Ribbon.
The VA rules regarding the identificatin card were changed along the way, to only have the words pertaining to purple heart indicated for those persons actually in reciept of a purple heart. The change was made in light of the confusion created by that nomenclaure and design of the card.
I know you are allready aware of this, because you have said as much in the background information. I just wanted to point out, that because of all of this, it would be helpful to re-examine the card, which they woud do in court, to make sure we are talking about the same card.
__________________
YOUR PAYMENT AND BONUS IF ANY MAY BE TAX DEDUCTIBLE
Edward M. Johnson
