At 01:38 PM 2/1/02 -0500 Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>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.
IMHO - this whole exchange of "threat vs. warning" is only serving to
obscure the core issue in the same way that the "is Palestine a country"
exchange served the same purpose in a previous discussion.
Be it a threat or a warning, there is a fundamental question as to whether
the actions in question warranted a list-owner telling a member that he was
"one step closer to being unsubscribed" be it in public or in private. As
Gautam has previously noted, although one would ordinarily expect criticism
of member conduct to be handled private, in this case the criticism was so
in excess of the conduct in question that it is actually *good* that it was
done in public so that the Community could affirm that the criticism was
indeed out of all proportion to the conduct.
This is a proper role for the Community, to give views on appropritate
criticisms for conduct, and which is why it is completely beyond the pale
for a list-owner to cast shame on the Community for exercising this very
important and necessary function of their participation on the List. It
is the Community that sets the standards, not the List-Owners.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Our campaign against international terrorism does not represent some
sort of 'clash of civilizations.' Instead, it is a clash between
civilization and those who would destroy it." -Amb. Richard N. Haass
