"J. van Baardwijk" wrote: > > Oh the irony. Eileen and I get attacked because warning John > was "totally unjustified", "an outrage", "abuse of power" and > other such nonsense, but we get attacked in the same way (if > not worse) we are being accused of using.
Yes, ironic, isn't it? As I see it, you weren't being chastised for admonishing, but for warning/threatening -- and in in public. We're back to whether the 'you're one step closer to being banned' is an admonition, a warning, or a threat. Given that the person who issued it possessed the power to follow through, I personally think it was definitely a warning, but not *quite* a threat. The other related issue is whether warning unilaterally is something the listowners are chartered to do. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millenium hand and shrimp!"
