Clarke, revisited

Though I’ve still not had any luck getting Clarke Beasley to say more about the breakdown of votes, my Dueling Beasleys did get a reply out of him all the same. And since I knocked him around a little for being sassy, it seems fair and reasonable to post his reply:

I’m sorry if my previous answer seemed curt. I meant to be forthright rather than sassy, but I can see where my answer might have construed as the latter. I actually enjoy the thought-provoking style of your writing. Though I do not agree with all the points you try to make, the articles are entertaining nonetheless. By the way, if ever my Father and I were engaged in a “duel,” the smart money would be on him.

As I told Clarke, I appreciate the apology and the kind words. But I also hope he’ll reconsider his reticence about detailing the vote breakdown (as opposed to the particular way each member voted). Not least of all, clarification is needed given that Clarke has said the vote was “close” and Les has said the vote was “unanimous.” I guess if we read between the lines of Clarke’s last sentence here, it’s possible Clarke may soon discover he was “mistaken” or he “misremembered” or whatever about the “close” vote. Of course I hope I’m wrong, but it’s hard to see how to put the smart money on Les without Clarke distancing himself from his earlier remarks.

Email this Post

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked * Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.