02-13-2012, 10:55 AM
This is Mitch Roth's topic, and I was already regretting my earlier comment on etiquette (thank you to opihikao et al for bothering to respond to me so nicely).
However, now Kapohocat is bringing a comment I made on Big Island Chronicle into the mix and asking Mr. Roth to defend himself based on my comment. I made a correction just now to my BIC comment in response to CSE (presumably Cat by a different handle), which I will copy over here for those who don't want to follow the link:
"I need to make a correction. Having reviewed my correspondence from two months ago, I need to revise this wording:
>>>Damon, this bill was originally authored by Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Mitch Roth, who submitted it to the legislators.
The context of this remark by me was that Damon was going off about how it was a waste of taxpayer money for unnecessary laws, and the point of my response was to inform Damon that Mitch Roth thought that the current statute needed amending and thought it worthwhile to have a hand in that process. I stand by that.
Now CSE is making comments trying to critique Mr. Roth for the current language of the bill. It was never my intent to imply that he authored this exact language. He is not a legislator. There is a difference between suggesting a needed amendment and authoring a bill, and mea culpa, I should have been more precise in the wording of my rather late night response to Damon Tucker.
I certainly apologize to Mr. Roth that he is now getting queried over perceived flaws in the language of the bill.
I do have a copy of an email that submitted some language to a legislator. The language was actually the result of a collaboration, and it is not the same as the final version of the bill. IMHO it was better crafted at its inception.
What we see now is the work of law produced by committee, and I think that criticism of the language is appropriately directed to the Chairperson of the relevant committee, NOT to someone who had an initial hand in asking the legislature to work on an amendment."
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2012/0...ent-124502
If Mr. Roth wants to comment on his original language or intent, that is of course up to him. I'm not going to publish any email(s) here that I didn't write.
However, now Kapohocat is bringing a comment I made on Big Island Chronicle into the mix and asking Mr. Roth to defend himself based on my comment. I made a correction just now to my BIC comment in response to CSE (presumably Cat by a different handle), which I will copy over here for those who don't want to follow the link:
"I need to make a correction. Having reviewed my correspondence from two months ago, I need to revise this wording:
>>>Damon, this bill was originally authored by Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Mitch Roth, who submitted it to the legislators.
The context of this remark by me was that Damon was going off about how it was a waste of taxpayer money for unnecessary laws, and the point of my response was to inform Damon that Mitch Roth thought that the current statute needed amending and thought it worthwhile to have a hand in that process. I stand by that.
Now CSE is making comments trying to critique Mr. Roth for the current language of the bill. It was never my intent to imply that he authored this exact language. He is not a legislator. There is a difference between suggesting a needed amendment and authoring a bill, and mea culpa, I should have been more precise in the wording of my rather late night response to Damon Tucker.
I certainly apologize to Mr. Roth that he is now getting queried over perceived flaws in the language of the bill.
I do have a copy of an email that submitted some language to a legislator. The language was actually the result of a collaboration, and it is not the same as the final version of the bill. IMHO it was better crafted at its inception.
What we see now is the work of law produced by committee, and I think that criticism of the language is appropriately directed to the Chairperson of the relevant committee, NOT to someone who had an initial hand in asking the legislature to work on an amendment."
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2012/0...ent-124502
If Mr. Roth wants to comment on his original language or intent, that is of course up to him. I'm not going to publish any email(s) here that I didn't write.