Quote Originally Posted by Highland Logan View Post
Ron,

I’m sorry to hear that someone who is supposed to be a well-respected member of the board has sent you a PM, which has upset you so.

I think the first thing which comes to my mind during this incident, is whether or not you decided to deal with them with the same respect they showed you… by using the PM system; “P” standing for private, rather than present it here for all to see with only one point of view.. yours.

I’m sure as a councillor you understand the idea of the effects of catching someone unaware by taking what was assumed to be a private conversation public.

Also of note is lack of the actual PM, and in its place is your condensed and paraphrased version. I’m sure as a councillor you see how this looks like a person attempting to gather followers before the accused get his or her say.

To all of those who chose to pick up torches and pitchforks and run Ron’s PM friend out of town… stop and think about your actions and words. You are all willing to burn someone whose identity is unknown, on evidence, which has only come from one source. That doesn’t sound very fair, now does it?

So in fairness to both Ron, and the mystery person, I suggest to the Mods that this thread be closed before too many bad feelings are created.

Frank
Acknowledging that there were some comments aimed at the poster of the PM, I felt that the great majority of comments were positive ones about an affirmative desire to hear (and see) information about Kathy Lare. I have to say, rereading the posts, that I don't conjure an image of torches and pitchforks until you paint it.

There has also been some helpful conversation about where the limits ought to be regarding reviews that can often come close to sounding like sales pitches. It's a touchy line and needs discussion on occasion. Are we meant to only discuss kilts and products by the forum's advertisers? Of course not, but where the line should be drawn is not obvious to me and, I think, to many others on the forum.

As to the privacy of the original communication, surely you're not suggesting that Ron should have posted the full text and identify the sender of the PM. And of course, the question of whether Ron has responded privately to the original PM is between him and the original sender.

Ron may have been reaching for some support ("gathering followers"? really?) and airing his point of view, but I also think he had a genuine question about whether he was in the wrong or not and I would hate to think that he, or any of us, would be hesitant to step forward with a question like that and bring it to the members.

regards

Ken