I am going to guess that every one of us has thought of saying something to a customs or immigration official and then held back, because we figured we could wait until our next doctor’s appointment for the response that might ensue.
Last Wednesday was an interesting day at the BDU hearings, with Shaw in the morning and a panel in the afternoon that included Channel Zero, The Fight Network, High Fidelity HDTV and Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment.
When preparing their comments, the folks at High Fidelity HDTV acknowledged that their written comments were written in a stream of consciousness.
Sometimes the mood in which you write depositions like this is not the mood in which you deliver it.
While they cleaned up some of the language from their prepared written version, they didn’t stop to think about how a series of lines like the following would be received, especially when the Commissioners were reading along with the original version in front of them:
We think there are many areas in which the Commission is remarkably in the dark…
The CRTC chair listened patiently and finally responded:
Each time you make a submission to us, it is more abrasive and more offensive. To be called shamefully in the dark, woefully ‑‑ I’m failing to understand, et cetera.
You can obviously say that, but in my hearing and that of the Commission, our willingness to accede to your arguments does not increase with the level of attacks that we receive from you. I have no problem with you saying that we are wrong, et cetera, but I think that kind of language is uncalled for.
I think our mothers tried to teach us to remember our manners. It is reasonable advice for all of us who participate in public proceedings. Read it over again in the morning and stop to think about how the message will be received.
Technorati Tags:
CRTC