Originally Posted by
NickB
This is not a definition I provide.
You provided the characterization of my argument.
Originally Posted by
NickB
You are again confusing "listening" and "being bound by". I may listen and yet take a different decision. It does not mean that what was being said was not taken into account in my decision-making.
If the consultative body says, I am against A for X, Y and Z reasons. And the decision maker nonetheless decides A for R, S and T reasons, it does not follow that the body was not listened to even if its advice was not followed.
And, as I mentioned above, there is absolutely no evidence that Randy or IB "listens" to what TB has to say. You might like to think that he does, and he might say that he does, but that doesn't really show anything at all, does it? Hell, if I wasn't listening to a consultative body I'm pretty sure that I would at least say that I was. Wouldn't you?
But here's the rub: how many times has Randy consulted TB on major issues, like opening FT to Google? Where was TB's consultation there? If Randy cares and listens so much, should he have listened then?