Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RF2044, post: 88873, member: 40"] I think there's a simple explanation. Have you ever seen anyone lose it in the workplace, and behave inappropriately even when the incident causing the individual to blow up seems fairly minor? Sometimes people let their dissatisfaction with co-workers build up, getting bigger and bigger over time, and when they finally blow their stack it doesn't matter how minor the trigger incident is--the reaction is based upon the cumulative negative "baggage" in its entirety--not on the incident itself. That's exactly what seems to be happening between Fitzpatrick and Fowler. Frankly, this seems really amateurish on Fitzpatrick's part. I doubt that it has much to do with the case at hand [at least not the logistics of the case]. It's just the trigger event for something that has been building over time between these two agencies, and the high publicity aspect of it is what made Fitz finally pop his cork. [/QUOTE]