Quote:
Originally Posted by kamita721
For the second one; I've been spending the past 2 weeks proofing a requirements specification for a ~7 company government contract; I might be a bit over zealous with my proofreading. The issue here is that a sub contractor for a sub contractor might not understand what this thread is about, and interperat that rule to not apply to the original ED*Es that first started the denial. In the context of this thread; probably not anything worth worrying about.
Regarding the punishment; I get that. I was trying to keep the thread fun, but I can see how that is also pushing more work onto you, which wasn't my intent. Beyond the obvious tasks you are doing for these threads, I can see that you are putting in a lot of admin effort to actually run them, and I wouldn't want to add too much to that.
|
Ok. 2nd one didn't makes sense to be because your suggested verbiage change was identical to the verbiage you had an issue with. I've tried making it clearer. Let me know if that works better for you.