PI Brat,
It seems to me that you latch onto a semantic obliquitous and tangential statement as a central focus. Then you argue minutia infinitum on the point even after it has been overcome by events or argument subsequent to the loss of the greater meaning in a flurry of electrons.
Your current fixation on “substantial” is a prime example.
The two pilot groups could not come to agreement through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration. The neutral made a final effort to move the parties towards compromise. The west made a minor change in their position, the east did not.
To argue that the east’s intransience undeterred by the imminency of the cessation of the proceedings leading to an award is unimportant because the west’s change in their position was not “substantial” is quite astounding.
Parties do not like to negotiate against themselves. As entrenched as both sides were in this matter with the forthright admonition by the neutral that neither position would prevail, a small move is indicative as an “opener” for potential movement towards compromise. Without a corresponding response from the opposing party there are only two avenues available, further compromise by the moving party or the conclusion of the proceedings.
It is therefore frivolous and inane to argue that; the determination by the east to not acquiesce to the neutrals request to change their position is cogent, compelling, or well-founded because the move by the west was not substantial.
Ok rant over. My 2 hundredths of a dollar have been rendered.
As you were, carry-on.
