Peter, as I indicated in my response, that was a hypothetical and a direct
restating of what Simon had originally posted (and which I read his
subsequent response to retract to some extent), to wit, 

<snip>
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Simon DeWitt
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Records Management under IT - Yes or No?

Should Not!

IT does not understand the complexity of RM requirements and want to
simplify them.
</snip>

As I further stated, I don't believe that at all, any more than I believe my
response in which I simply reversed the two-letter pairs "RM" and "IT". 

Let me state ONE MORE TIME: I don't believe that RM can't or doesn't or
shouldn't or mustn't "get" or "do" or report to IT. Nor do I believe that IT
can't or doesn't or shouldn't or mustn't "get" or "do" or even report to RM.
If I did I wouldn't have run for the ARMA BOD, done all the things I have
for ARMA these last six years since I joined ARMA, or even joined in the
first place. Is that clear enough?

But any time anyone sends that type of shallow response to the list you can
count on me to pound it without mercy in exactly the same fashion, and the
poster better be able to defend that abysmal position. There are a small
handful of folks on this list that do this over and over and over again, and
I don't see the need to tolerate it when it's applied to IT any more than
the rest of you do when I apply it the same way to RM.  

My .02 and a bit of heat, 

Jesse Wilkins
"Everything IT can do, RM can do - AND VICE VERSA!"
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]