doc posts:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In addition, the FT board owners/managers have exhibited an unwillingness to discuss these matters publicly, so I'd urge us all to kindly defer and respect this policy of not talking about others!</font>
Then why, may I ask, do you violate your own "advise" and do just that with the following?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">FWIW, briefly, he and another FT'er had a little chat with Randy over some persistent disagreements, and the upshot was that these two folks would both no longer post. Yet after a year, they are now both happily back in the FT fold resuming their contributions!</font>
If
you feel free to discuss this subject (against your own "advise"), then why shouldn't anyone else be allowed to do the same?
I'll repeat that question just in case you missed it:
If
you feel free to discuss this subject (against your own "advise"), then why shouldn't anyone else be allowed to do the same?
Personally, and since
doc has commented on this, and to at least allow a speck of "equal time" so to speak, I don't think
doc's revisionist/minimalist synopsis of the whole matter does the story justice and is a million miles (there, at least I discussed miles) from "succinct."
I don't have a problem with anyone sending their welcome back greetings. But if anyone trys to sugar coat what happened in the past and feels compeled to only allow
one side of the story (as was just now put forth), and that which IMHO does not even
approach the truth or the whole story, well...
You can't have it both ways boys. You can't ask others to keep their mouths shut while you go on publically pushing your own "it was no big deal" version of the story.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.