Element9 said:
Even though I use a moniker, I'd side with Mark on this one.
Ten months is "closer to a year" and he did preface his comments with "if I remember correctly," which gives a person a bit of flexibility. In other words, it was an estimate and in this case, it was off by only two months.
It could have been that Ch 8 rescinded the remaining two months of Rachel Barnhart's non-compete in exchange for compensation (as a buy out of the remainder of her non-compete) or because they felt ten months was a sufficient amount of time for her persona to fall from top of mind awareness.
[EDIT-response to inflammatory remark]
-9-
Hmmm...where do we begin?
Well, let's start with Mark's original comment that "if memory serves me correct(ly) Rachel...had to wait for OVER (emphasis mine) a year before she was allowed to appear on-air at Ch.13"
I merely pointed out that she was on the air LESS than a year after she parted ways with Channel 8. ("closer to a year" doesn't enter into the equation because that's not what he said). Because the term of her non-compete was for one year, it's a distinction that, if not important, is at least more than trivial.
Moreover, because Mark seems to be so so quick to criticize mistakes he catches newscasters making while bemoaning the lack of accuracy in modern day reporting, I have to wonder how accurate he was in his own 30+ year career in news (which he so often reminds us of).
Put another way, would you have broadcast such a (inaccurate) statement, and then gotten so huffy with a listener who called you on it?
The same point could be made about your reply posts where you state "an arbitrator ruled against Rachel which would have allowed her to appear on 13 shortly after leaving 8"...and then later when you state (again, obviously without knowledge) that "...the case went before an arbitrator who ruled against her in the no compete clause...are you denying that as well?"
I'm not "denying" it per say, Mark. Or maybe I am. Let's just say (as long as you asked) that once again you're making suppositions rife with factual problems.
To Wit:
1.) She didn't even go before an arbitrator until September. This was some 9 mos. after leaving Ch.8. So I don't know how you can say that if she'd had a more favorable ruling she would have been allowed on air "shortly" after leaving 8
2.) The terms of her settlement were sealed and because of that she won't even disclose to her closest friends the specifics of it. So how do you know if the arbitrator ruled "against" her, or even what they ruled?? ..and why would you then pontificate on something you wouldn't know about? I mean, you obviously don't because of your misstatements. Here again, I gotta wonder: were you that sloppy when you disseminated information over the airwaves for a living?
3.) (and this is probably the most important) If anyone ruled "against" Rachel, it would have been State Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Fisher. He, after all, was the one who early on in this whole fracus kicked the case to arbitration, leading to the prolonged legal battle. (the outcome of which--again--you wouldn't know about) Perhaps you were confused, or your memory was foggy...but there's an important difference between a seated judge and an out of court arbitrator. (I needn't explain that one,..right?)
Again, you're always the first to moan about sloppy reporting or innacuurate statements you hear on TV or radio, ...but you just make so many yourself on these boards!
[EDIT-response to inflammatory remark]