I would be glad to address any questions of "misinformation" privately via e-mail. I personally find it inappropriate to our host to discuss issues around another board on his private forum and will not do so.

cigarman: The reason I didn't address NJDavid's comments is because they were not personal, name calling, ad hominem attacks like the ones made in the offending thread and then repeated above, such as the one in which one of the members refers to NJDavid as a "clown" and me as a "whiner" and "sanctimonious." If NJDavid had said "Randy's a clown," I would have been all over him. But NJDavid didn't personalize his remarks, or attack Randy, he
said he felt there was something wrong on the board, albeit strongly.

Now, NJDavid might not have used the same style I would have in expressing this, but he didn't get personal. In fact, he starts off by expressing respect for Randy and what he's accomplished here. I've expressed a preference for moderation here many many times over the years. Those posts could be implied as criticism to this board similar to NJDavid's remarks, and some may tire of it, but I've never been attacked for it (until now).

So what are the boundaries of civility? For instance, you and I have very different personal styles, but I've never asked that any of your posts to be moderated - you often express things strongly, but you don't engage in personal attacks and name calling. (And I respect you for that.) In fact, despite our personal differences in style, I think we've gotten along pretty well over the months on the CO board, in private e-mail, and over dinner.

All I'm asking for is for an end to name calling and personal attacks, and until I'm asked to stop doing so by the hosts of our board, I'll continue as I've done in the past.