<HTML>Dear All,
I have read with interest what GH and RB have been saying about the cancellation of the PSU conference. I think it is obvious from their postings that they have concluded PSU cancelled the conference in order that Garrett wouldn't have to apologise (the conspiracy option).
Let me ask this of GH and all the readers here:
Option 1. Due to poor ticket sales, and the prospect of losing ever increasing amounts of money (financial cost) the College decides to 'Cut its losses' and cancel.
Option 2. Get Garrett to apologise for the alleged slight (no financial cost) and continue with the event.
Now in all reality which option is the more probable cause of cancellation?
Does GH and RB really think that a University, having, I imagine, spent substantial money on promotion and printing etc., going to let a junior faculty member scupper a successful conference in order that he may avoid 'Saying sorry'? If so Garrett must have immense influence.
Now I am only an accountant and not, in the words of RB, one of 'those rare and shinning individuals who may have an original idea to bring out one day' (I presume he includes himself in this category). I do however know about 'profit and loss'. I find it quite possible, in fact probaple, that PSU looked at this event and concluded it was best to cut their losses and avoid further losses by cancelling.
Of course such a scenario is based on assuming business principles, and wouldn't fit in with the old GH and RB convoluted conspiracy reasoning.
As a final note I have been amused by RB's very public show of indignation as evidenced by his numerous complaining e-mails to various PSU luminaries. Methinks he did this in an effort to cause trouble for Garrett with his employers, and not out of any sense of wounded pride. But then we all can have our conspiracy theories can't we??
Best
Mark</HTML>
