--- "J. van Baardwijk" wrote: > Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: > > >Out of context from exchange between Debbi and > Nick: > > > >Debbi: > > > I must once again respectfully disagree. > Anonymous dings, no matter the > > > value they are given, go against the idea of > transparency. If someone > > > dings me, I want to know who did it. > > > >Nick: > >I'm sure you do... but I don't think transparency > need be carried that far, necessarily. > > Debbi did not write what you attribute to her -- I > wrote that. > > Jeroen "Minor detail" van Baardwijk
I _thought_ that seemed more elaborate than what I remembered writing... <wry grin> What I did say on Sat., Oct 26, same thread, was: "I personally would prefer to know who (and why). If I am convinced someone needs dinging, I am willing to have my opinion made public. If someone wants to ding me, I'd like to know [why]... "But transparency would be easier. And more in the spirit of IAAMOAC." And after further consideration, I have to agree with Erik that anonymous dinging should be severely penalized. If allowed at all. And you ought to try talking it out offlist first [*politely*], as somebody has already suggested. Debbi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
