Rick Macdougall writes:
> I think Tom and Ken have resolved their issues off list
So it appears. Ken has not resolved my issue with his involvement with
> and we
We??? Do you claim to speak for everyone on the list? Surely not
because at best you can speak for everyone on the list EXCEPT me.
And I suspect there may be one or two others you do not speak for
> would appreciate it if you did the same.
Gosh, wouldn't it have been a good idea if you wanted to avoid
unnecessary traffic on the list if you had mailed me DIRECTLY instead
of posting to the list? If you want to make your point ON the list then
you have to allow me to respond there. Well, whether you allow me or
not, that's what I'm gonna do.
If you want to discuss this by mail then feel free to take it there. If
you want to rebuke me on the list, however nicely, then expect me to
respond there. As I explained to somebody else today, all you get to
control is what you read and write and where you post it. You do not get
to control what I read and write and where I post that. Any attempt to
claim the moral high ground about unnecessary traffic to the list which
is POSTED TO THE LIST will get the rebuke it deserves ON the list.
> If Tom or Ken has an issue, it may belong on the list, if you personally
> have an issue with Inter7 and/or Tom it does not.
I disagree with your statement, for which you have provided no backing.
If I disagree with Ken being an admin and can provide a compelling
argument for my belief then that DOES belong on the list. I believe I
have provided grounds why Ken is not a suitable choice for an admin.
Perhaps you would care to provide some reasoning, however slender, why
I should not take issue with Ken here.
> Thank you in advance for your understanding.
You are ever the optimist...