Why has there been such a shroud of secrecy surrounding the decision to discontinue “Issues”?
We would respectfully disagree that there has been any secrecy about the reasons for the cancellation. We do acknowledge that there are limitations based on LCMS Human Resources policies concerning disclosure of facts relating to the termination of employees. The decision was made and publicly announced. A subsequent statement said, with good reason, that “detailed reasons are not usually provided when making program changes, and [that we] intend to continue our policy and procedure not to publicly discuss specific personnel matters.” Even so, in that same statement, a number of specific reasons were given for the cancellation of the show.
Employment matters at the LCMS are overseen by the Synod’s Human Resources Department. This department prohibits comments on such matters for the privacy and protection of all parties during the requisite transition period.
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Filed under: Updates
Um, thank you for playing, but you didn’t answer the question. Or, to quote Danny Concannon from TV’s “The West Wing,” “I’m that’s an answer to some question, it’s just not the answer to my question.”
The question is asked about the shroud of secrecy surrounding the DECISION. The answer states that the REASONS were not secret. “The decision was made” [in secret] “and publicly announced.” [so it's not a secret].
Notice also how here he carefully marries the cancellation and termination, but in the answer to the very next question, they are two completely separate issues:
“This was not a personnel decision that resulted in the cancellation. Rather, the show was cancelled resulting in the staff reductions.”
So, to put it more (?) simply, “The show wasn’t cancelled because Todd and Jeff were fired. It was cancelled all on its own. But we can’t talk about the cancellation because Todd and Jeff were fired.”
One of life’s harder lessons: Telling a lie means telling more lies to cover up the first lie.
Brother Strand is finding this out. How much simpler to say, “They were in the way of the most reverend doctor Kieschnick’s ways of increasing the numbers in the LCMS, so they had to go.”
They have to know that if they had boldly stated this, the half of the synodical congregations that instructed delegates to vote for them, and who really LIKE the happy clappy feel good Sunday services, would have rallied, and snappily so: ‘”They cut a program nobody listened to. *smug chuckle* Oh, silly little confessionals, what’s your PROBLEM with that? Let’s join hands, now, and lift them in the air … you’ll feel better, soon….”
“Um, thank you for playing, but you didn’t answer the question.”
That was the case for several questions. One of my favorites was the one about “How can we be sure that your numbers are right?” The answer? “Because our internal accountant said they were fair and reliable and accurate”.
Yeah. That’s also what Ken Lay like to say about Enron’s financial situation in late 2001, and we all know how that story ended.
They still don’t get it.
This is just sophistry.
Oh, they get it. They’re just counting that the geat unwashed masses out there won’t. “Please, just shut up and go away.” Sad to say, they may be right. How many million membrs of congregations in the Synod? How many signatures on the petition?
Kudos to the four BCS members with guts!
Yes, Ed, I’m afraid you’re right.
They do get it.
[...] it consisted of nothing new in terms of information. There continues to be hiding behind “policies” and “financials” that raise questions, while the real concerns aren’t [...]