Just so I'm clear, the Board 'strongly endorsed' Costello as their preference to be the next Chairman... But that shouldn't be viewed as a recommendation by the Board for him to be the next Chairman...
Seriously?
For the record, I've got no problems with Gonski being appointed - I've got no doubt he'll do a great job, and his resume and suitability for the job can't be questioned; so why feel the need to lie?
I thought it might be too difficult for you. Let's try this simplified approach, and I apologise for the obviously paternalistic tone that simplifying things for you inevitably involves.
If I "strongly endorse" King Elvis as chalk monitor for next week all I am saying is that King Elvis meets all the requirements for chalk monitor. I am NOT necessarily saying King Elvis is "the best choice" for chalk monitor. I might well think Windhover is a better choice but, with typical modesty, recognise the qualifications of others.
If I "recommend" King Elvis as chalk monitor for next week I am saying I think King Elvis is the man for the job over anyone else. My recommendation of King Elvis carries with it the implication that I know he is better than anyone else, including Windhover. Curiously, just because I think you are the man does not necessarily mean I think you meet all the requirements for chalk monitor (cf my "strong endorsement"). I might just think you are the best of a bad bunch and that, for instance, Windhover would make an even worse chalk monitor.
It is apparent from your response thus far these subtleties of language are somewhat beyond your level of comprehension. Unless you make the effort to understand what words actually mean you will forever think yourself duped by your simplistic misunderstandings. But do not go around shouting "liar" every time big words are used. You are just trumpeting your ignorance.
Is this helpful?