"J. van Baardwijk" wrote:
>
> At 10:13 03-05-2002 -0500, Marvin Long wrote:
>
> >I don't think you're "out of line" -- the question is perfectly sensible,
> >and an obvious one to ask. Answering it, however, would require
> >discussing an individual in a way that probably shouldn't happen in
> >public without that individual's permission.
>
> Permission granted for discussion on *this* list (as it is relevant to this
> list), and only if you (plural) can manage to write without turning it into
> a personal attack. Might not be easy, will definitely require some extra
> effort, requires some restraint, but should be doable.
>
> >Dan's proposal of a Yahoo-group devoted to this question alone is a good
> >one. Basically it's a proposal to create a space for mediation. But
> >mediation is a step that all participants must agree to and embrace in
> >advance; it can't be pushed on someone. And mediation requires a mediator,
> >someone all participants agree may moderate the discussion and whom all
> >participants trust to be impartial. I think Dan and I would both probably
> >fail on this count, Julia, but you or Eileen or some other less combative
> >Brineller might qualify.
>
> I believe the two ladies would not qualify. Not that I question their
> ability to do this, but since they are my fellow listowners, people might
> consider them to be less-than-impartial.
Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't want to be one to do this,
for this and other reasons.
Julia
