>>>>>OK, you are a part of this, but why do you insist on involving the rest of us? Why does everything have to be so da*n public? If this a case involving four people, including you, why can't this stay between the four of you? And if you all come to an agreement, THEN it's time to "go public" with whatever you have agreed should be public.
>>>>
>>>>Go back to the posts that triggered me to react. It was John who made public that he has certain private knowledge. So why don't you criticize him for writing that in public?
>>>
>>>If you count the messages for and against AK/MA, I guess you will end up somewhere around 95%/5%. So John only raised the ratio to 94%/6%. Look at all the other messages written here the last 4-5 days, and you will for instance read that some persons actually indicated that they wanted to put some of the fourth of July firecrackers under AK's chair. Some other people wanted to go even further. And look at all the childish people who want to let other people suffer because they try to be neutral in this, and let AK and MA speak for the sole reason that they are among the best speakers available. No matter what you do in this case, it's wrong for some people. I think it's more than one person here who owe someone else an apology.
>>
>>I guess I must read 'against and for' where you write 'for and against', right?
>>
>>It was Mike's reaction to John's that triggered me. If someone indeed wrote in some message about firecrackers under AK's chair, then I fully reject such wordings, even if meant ironically.
>
>Wait, what did I do? This thread is already getting too long for me to go back and look for it. AFAIK all that happened was Charles defended Andy and Marcia, I disagreed, John replied to me that there is more to it and offered to continue in email, and I said OK. What was it that needs to be "fully rejected"?

Mike, it is as I said, I replied to your reply to John. That's all. If I made the impression that you were that 'someone' I mention in the second sentence, then I apologize.