Gautam wrote; > In this case, though, I think that the public warning has served a worthy > purpose. I, for one, would rather _know_ that the potential for something > like this exists - aren't you? It isn't _John_ who should be > embarassed in > this situation, either.
That's a good point, but I think that for a first warning on the topic, it definitely could have been done more diplomatically (sorry Eileen). But that's just me :-) Gary
