Once again, it is interesting to see the points that you chose to respond to, and those that you have studiously avoided. Readers can and will draw their own conclusions from that, once again.
The cherry in question is:
UL falsely stated that Ryan "created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative* of UL."
*representative: someone who speaks for others
Nice try but no, the cherry picking in question was
yours. You know, when you deliberately misquoted and changed the judge's words in an effort to pretend that the judge said something that he did not say, and in an effort to pretend that the judge agreed with your interpretation when he did no such thing.
Oh, and your recent attempts to insert your own definition of "representative" as if that is the only definition attributable to the word - in order to try to reframe the discussion - are also disingenuous, albeit unsurprising.
Created a misleading impression on who?
You
really don't understand this whole
law thing, do you? Why not just admit it?
more nonsensical blather, snipped
See above.
Yes, that is my educated, informed, and professional opinion about the legal issues raised, based on years of relevant education, information and legal experience, as opposed to your uneducated, uninformed, and non-professional opinion based on nothing but a faith-based desire to cling to an unfounded, unsupported conspiracy theory. I've never suggested otherwise, and your lame attempts to suggest that I have are just silly, and blatantly apparent to readers.
Your refusal to address the issues raised with anything but your own misguided, uninformed, and uneducated opinion is also quite apparent to readers.
Other than the first paragraph, where Ryan was relating what he had heard, "We" and "us" included Mr. Gayle and therefore Ryan was NOT creating the misleading impression that he was speaking for UL. He was stating points of agreement [including Mr. Gayle] and points of possible agreement [including Mr. Gayle].
Nonsense, as set out more fully in prior posts. Why do you continue to ignore the actual issues and arguments raised? You are not fooling anyone but yourself, you know.
The same is true in reverse.
See above.
No rush. I strongly suspect that you will proffer nothing but the same old nonsense that you've proffered thusfar. The world can certainly wait for that non-event.
Lastly, as I have said at least a couple of times previously, the evidence suggests that Ryan 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.
Once again, if you have any
evidence to the contrary, now would be a good time to present it. So far, you've been remarkably and obviously reluctant to do so.
Spitfire, Arus, funk de fino, and jonnyclueless, immediately above, are right, as are several others, including Minadin, BillyRayValentine, Disbelief, AZCat, ukdave,
et al further above.
And Kevin Ryan remains a liar and a fraud.
