Therein lies the problem. You don't get it. You (apparently it was you) sent out an unattributed email blast using "survey" questions. To many I have talked to, the lack of attribution caused the e-mail to look like it was an official council communication. It was not.

You or some other small group of pilots took it upon themselves to determine which issues "they" thought were important to the Delta pilots and then survey on those issues and those issues alone.

I am left with one of either two choices:

1) You are attempting to manipulate the election unfairly by skirting the rules, or

2) Your neophyte status has left you unable to foresee the political issues you have now caused yourself.

I tend to believe it is option 2, but that gives me no comfort.

BTW, PDF files are very easy to manipulate. If I could post attachments here, I would prove that to you. Not saying you did that, but your statement that you could not have is untrue.

Back to lurker mode.

The reason that No Response was not used, was because at my urging I did not want anyone who had not responded to have words of any kind put in to their mouth. Hence a total omission rather than words that were not approved by a candidate. Make sense?

So you did in fact have a say into what the final product looked like before it was sent. Thanks for that clarification.

That is fine, and I am just stating the facts. In fact the e-mail has the header by ALPA National as to it being a campaign e-mail. There is/was no ulterior motive, period.

In response to two, if it has caused issues then so be it. I did not hit send if that is what you are referring to.

Sure, I responded to the author's e-mail that he sent out. I voiced my concerns.

If you allowed it to be sent out on your behalf, you did in fact "hit send." That's fine. Just acknowledge it. Being accountable is an important attribute for a rep to have.

I voted for myself.

As with all of the candidates that responded, I approved my answers being shared. I am accountable for my answers as I knew that they would be shared with the pilots of 44.

I believe that transparency is good. I beleive in what I wrote.

Well I don't mean to imply anything that is not true, so let me be more direct. My understanding is that only a candidate (or maybe someone with the OK of a candidate) can use that ALPA email system for election material. So if I am correct, a candidate authorized that mailing either directly or on his behalf.

Here comes the direct part (I too believe transparency is good).

Are you the candidate who, either directly or via proxy, authorized that e-mailing?

I did not send the e-mail to national. Fact is that all of the candidates knew it was going to be sent though. It was not surprise to me that it was sent. The author addressed this with the candidates. No one refused to have their answers included. They knew that was the intent.