The XYZ contractor can go and post about the poor work of the sub but that's their thing. We are talking about the end user here, the farmer/indians. They were the customer and they get to complain about the contractor, not the sub.
They may "get" to, but that's not actually accurate is it?
When you manufacture a firearm for a customer, do you allow that customer to stand over your shoulder at the lathe or mill, admonishing you to ream here, counterbore there, chamfer this? Not simply adding design input, but telling you how to do the job? Or do you remind them that they are the customer, (which is the EPA in this case) who has contracted you, the professional, to do a job? "Please allow me to do my job, I don't need micromanaging??"
That's how I see it...the Navajo's weren't the customer, the EPA was. The way I read that article, any contract made was between the EPA (customer), and the trucking firm (contractor. I fully agree that the EPA must stand for PART of the blame...but not all. And the media should not twist and manipulate facts simply for the sake of sensationalism, but rather report the issue without regard to political agendas.
That's my beef with this whole thing. It's become too easy to blame government for our own shortcomings.
Here the fault in your logic: Whether guns or lawn mowers, it is the user, not the manufacturer who is the accountable party. When it comes to an agency in charge of safe water, the agency, not any other party, is accountable. To delegate the responsibility is to have no accountability. Which is where govt bureaucracies like to position themselves.
I see no fault. If a manufacturing defect exists within a gun, or a lawnmower, how is the user to be held accountable? As I see it, there was a contractor, (the trucking firm), a customer, (the EPA,) and an end user, (the Navajo residents of the area). There were no sub-contractors. I do not know for a fact, but I'm guessing that there was no contract between the EPA and the Navajo regarding trucking in water. But I'm willing to bet that one certainly exists between the EPA and the trucking concern.
Personally I don't think that should make any difference, but I know that many on the forum place a great emphasis on literal interpretation and crossing those T's and dotting those I's. If that be the case, then where does legal accountability for this fiasco lie? Once again I don't think that should matter, as I'm comfortable recognizing the intent behind the action.
edit...I see the post I replied to has been changed somewhat, so perhaps this post has lost relevancy. I will keep my post original, as I'm too lazy to go back and edit.....
Last edited by sprkplug; 08/22/1510:23 AM.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
