censorship

I actually drafted this in reply to the previous email, but Wendy says the tone not only burns bridges, it decimates the surrounding area and renders it uninhabitable. Without further ado, my drafted reply to Anjash:

"
To note: '...if the statements made in the email is...', 'is' should be replace with 'are' as the subject preceding it is plural.

I'm also not sure about the point you are making about Mr Lee concurring with you. Is he concurring because he has seen the research questions or is he concurring because of the prior funding agreement? So as per the funding agreement, if NCSS requires the number of left handed clients with one pimple on the right cheek, we are required to give that to you? I'm not sure about you, but usually in my arguments, I like to use logic and science.

Allow me one nuance of fallacy: despite my learnings and qualifications in mass communications, social work, psychology, sociology and philosophy, I fail to see the point of these and previous and current stats NCSS requires of us. Perhaps you can enlighten my feeble mind?

Lastly, I want to add that meeting after meeting, networking session after session, various Home Help providers have voiced out the same opinions after observations, some rather passionately, and each time, their voices are ignored and nothing has changed. The stats we have contributed over the time all seems to meet the same fate. Is that in the funding agreement too?

"