>Michel, John,
>
>I'm probably stepping on both your toes here, but...
>
>I did not see the offending entry that caused JVP to react so strongly (it was 'blue-pencilled' too soon), but its contents or the anonymity obviously upset *JVP* greatly and an apology is surely warranted for upsetting John, even if the poster stands by their comments.
>
>Could you not reach a compromise here:
>
>Michel could request the anonymous poster to apologise anonymously, either for the contents, or for posting anonymously (Michel knows who he/she is), possibly by posting the contents of the apology himself: although JVP would wish to know who the poster is, it is unlikely that that person will now expose themselves and commit UT suicide and Michel is not going to expose them.
>
>If the weasel will not apologise anonymously then *perhaps* there is a case for outing them although probably only John should be told.
>
>Sorry if I sound pompous (I usually do) but the UT has always seemed to me to be above this sort of slanging match and along with the lack of spam, makes the cost well worth while.
>----
>
>P.S. I'm sure I've annoyed others with my attempts at humour (I could claim culture clash) - are you sure that this wasn't someone's attempt to be humorous?
>
>P.P.S. I'm not the weasel

All,

I think this would be a reasonable approach.

John's had the opportunity to get this off his chest, the other individual (whomever he or she may be) should at some point help bring closure to all of this.

My take: If the motives of people are pure then there should be no problem reaching a resolution of some sort.

It their motives are not pure then they will resist.

My hope is that we will all help them figure out a way to reach a point where the community is once again more important than their misunderstanding.

Best,

DD