[svlug] Our honorable leaders....

[J C Lawrence]

On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:05:10 -0800 
Gies, Dennis<dennis.gies at intel.com> wrote:

> <clip source=news.com> In portions of the deposition played in the
> antitrust trial here, Gates repeatedly has answered questions with
> "I don't know" and "I don't recall."  His statements are
> frequently contradicted by email he has sent and received, and he
> frequently has claimed no recollection of the messages.

Lets add a touch of reality here:

  If I dug out a random message that you wrote, say, 3 years ago,
and asked you if you remember writing that _exact_ message, could
you answer in absolute certainty, "Yes", or would you answer that it 
looks like a message you might have written, and that you don't have 
any firm recollection of writing that particular message?

Deposition giving is a nasty and uncomfortable affair.  Done right
(ie serving your company, investors, etc), you say as little as
possible, volunteer nothing, and only answer the most literal
anal-retentive and exclusive interpretation of every question as you
possibly can.  If there is ___ANY___ possibility of ambiguity or or
exception in the question, no matter how faint, you answer with a
non-answer.

  "Did you write this message"?

  "I don't know."  (if I wrote that particular message, exactly and
precisely as shown to me, tho I may remember writing a message much
like that one, and it certainly seems familiar)

  "Do you remember writing this message?"

  "I don't remember."  (writing that exact message precisely as
shown to me, tho I may remember writing a message a lot like that
one).

etc.  The first rule of depositions: Say nothing if you can possibly
avoid it.  The second rule: Work very hard to help yourself say
nothing.
 
> At other points, Gates has claimed he doesn't know what his
> interrogators mean when they use terms such as "concerned," "ask"
> and "non-Microsoft browser."

Of course not.  Those are general terms, subject to interpretation,
and he can simply, and likely quite honestly, claim that while he
has a good idea what he meant _AT_THAT_TIME_ he now cannot proclaim
with absolute certainty and correctness as to what his intention or
meaning was back then.  And of course, he's not going to volunteer
that extra information.  Instead, he answers that, no, he doesn't
know what he meant back then, artfully dodging the less nit picky
and literal interpretation of the question that would help his
interegators and possibly open new avenues of investigation.

> Does this sound familiar to anyone?  "I guess that depends on what
> your definition of 'is', is."  Perhaps Ken Starr should be heading
> up the MS trial, or at least checking to make sure Bill hasn't
> engaged in anything illicit recently.

Quite.  I'm actually rather surprised they have not dug out the
Websters yet.

-- 
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at kanga.nu
(Contractor)                              Internet: coder at kanga.nu
---------(*)                     Internet: claw at under.engr.sgi.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...

--
echo "unsubscribe svlug" | mail majordomo at svlug.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to unsubscribe
see http://www.svlug.org/mdstuff/lists.shtml for posting guidelines.