The termination letter said Ryan “signed the letter as Site Manager, Environmental Health Laboratories” as if that was creating a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative* of UL.
*representative: someone who speaks for others
The letter said much more that, as you well know. Why not be honest and link to
the termination letter itself instead of just cherry picking the parts that you think support your feeble interpretation of it?
Specifically, the termination letter from UL says that Ryan's letter:
a) made reference to his work for UL;
b) was signed using his work title;
c) created the misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL;
d) did not represent the views of UL;
e) was not authorized by UL;
f) did not refer to matters within Ryan's area of employment;
g) highly inappropriately commented on tests UL had done for its client;
h) exhibited extremely poor judgement;
i) caused harm to UL's reputation; and
j) caused harm to UL's relationship with its client.
It also suggests that Ryan's statements were deceptive and misleading , and advises him that UL expects him not to do so in the future and expects him to abide by confidentiality obligations.
You
really should stop your dishonest cherry picking. You've done it numerous times and it only demonstrates how feeble your arguments and unfounded allegations are.
As for the letter itself,
Here are all the places where Ryan uses the words "we", "our" and "us".
No, those are
not all the places where Ryan uses the words "we", "our" and "us". Once again, why not be honest and link to
Ryan's letter itself instead of just cherry picking the parts that you think support your interpretation of it?
For instance, who do you suppose Kevin Ryan was referring to in the first full paragraph when he refers to - and which you did
not cite - "our CEO and Fire Protection business manager" and says "they suggested "we all" be patient and understand ..." ? Sure sounds like he's talking about multiple people at UL, doesn't it? Is that why you deliberately left those references out?
Right or wrong, Ryan is relaying his view based on his communications with Mr. Knoblauch and Mr. Chapin .
That is merely
your opinion based upon your obviously biased interpretation of yet another cherry picked presentation. As I said previously, your opinion is only that. Others disagree with your opinion, for very good reasons.
And I remind you that Ryan chose not to provide the court with his alleged e-mail exchange with Mr. Knoblauch and/or Mr. Chapin in support of his ill-fated complaint, and chose not to provide even the oddly-disjointed and evidentiary-valueless excerpts of same that he eventually provided until it was much too late. Why do you suppose that is?
He does not say or indicate he is was speaking for UL.
Of course, he does not
say he was speaking for UL, as he had no authority to do so, as a water tester at a subsidiary of UL. However, as has been pointed out several times already, by his choice of language, by writing the letter at work, by using his UL position in his signature (and the further references to UL in the signature line in the original, by the way, that do not appear in the online versions), by sending the letter from his workplace, and by repeated references to "us", "we", "our", etc., he most certainly insinuates that he is not writing as a private individual alone. The letter as a whole gives rise to a reasonable inference that he was trying to appear as though he was speaking from a position of authority within UL on behalf of others for whom he had no right to speak.
That's why he was fired.
In this letter, Ryan is speaking to Mr. Gayle.
If you look at this set of statements as a whole, the “we” and “us” includes Mr. Gayle.
And who else? That is rather the point.
Ryan is an idiot for writing that letter in the manner he did, and it is no wonder that he got fired for it.
In
your opinion.
With the exception of “And as we all agree,” Ryan was clearly expressing his own views.
No, it is not "clear" at all. See above.
It would have been very, very easy to write the letter in a manner that could not be interpreted as anything other than a private individual sending his personal concerns to NIST, even mentioning his employment and why and how he came to his (unsupported) assertions. Instead, Ryan chose to play word games, chose to use his work e-mail to do so, chose to use his position at a subsidiary of UL to get NIST's attention, chose to pretend that he had more knowledge and information than he actually had, chose to pretend to be a "whistleblower" when he was no such thing, chose to pretend to have closer ties to UL than he did, chose to let his delusions and his idiocy get the better of him, and it blew up in his face.
He lost his job as a result of his own stupidity and his own actions, and it is nobody's fault but his own.
Viewing the letter as a whole, it is obvious that Ryan was not creating a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL.
No, it is not "obvious" at all. Again, that is the point. See above.
It was obvious to all that Ryan's views were not those of U/L and therefore it is obvious that he was not speaking for UL.
Nonsense. See above.
Ryan was fired for questioning the unsubstantiated Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory.
Really? The evidence suggests that he was fired for writing a letter from his workplace, using his work e-mail, using his work credentials that:
a) made reference to his work for UL;
b) was signed using his work title;
c) created the misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL;
d) did not represent the views of UL;
e) was not authorized by UL;
f) did not refer to matters within Ryan's area of employment;
g) inappropriately commented on tests UL had done for its client;
h) exhibited extremely poor judgement;
i) caused harm to UL's reputation;
j) caused harm to UL's relationship with its client; and
k) made deceptive and misleading statements.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, now would be a good time to present it.
Oh, and please educate yourself about the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory, while you're at it.
