>John,
>>What? Were you around for the thread where K. Goff was threatened to a duel with swords? there have been many threads where physical violence was mentioned. This thread is no where near the most nasty.
>
>at least to my understanding you cannot be threatened with a duel: You have to accept to get into danger, it is a mostly ritualzied violence you are invited to. Threads with threats of physical violence seem to be rather ludicrous via wire, probably across a few thousand miles - by far another league than hurtling accusations across a bar, because in a bar other "messages" might easily be exchanged.
>
>A more probable scenario at trying to hurt "here" could be a hacking attempt on another machine - and perhaps more frightening, but even that risk I consider very minuscule.
>
>OTOH there might be a greater chance that the wording of "stealing taxpayer money" will affect Naomis business life now or later - and I am trying to formulate this as neutral as possible, because I have witnessed worse scenarios, which Marcia describes as stealing and I also know of scenarios where relatively low work-correlated access is allowed if the person spends more time in the office. But such accusations and statements can stick even when totally unfounded, and on that particular dimension I find the thread *more* than unwanted. Granted BTW that I see no "need" for the topic it drifted to at all, but that might be my personal make-up<g>.

Well said.

>Then there is the point of bashing the thin skinned - probably the majority thinks that such people should be protected and pampered. I think Naomi should get a thicker skin, and we are probably both atavistic enough to think that a process like this might help her, even if not pleasant.

I'm one of those who think Naomi should be protected. Pampered? No. A hug? Why not.