I fully understand that you meant it well, Peter. But, honestly, if we have to be sooo careful about every single thing we say here in the future then this is going to become an uncomfortable place real quickly.

What I said as regards JohnP in the message you refer to I have said to JohnP directly on numerous occasions (too many to count) while he was present here and fully able "to defend himself".

With the great sensitivity around this place right now I'd like to see one more "rule" added to the UT's set of rules. What I think is almost necessary is that anyone who is "offended" by a message ought to be required to declare the offensiveness first to the writer directly in a response to the particular offensive message.

I'd bet, by the way, that the UT management is looking at alternative ways to "banish" someone as a result of yours and the EvanP and other messages relating to same. I doubt that such revisions can be accomplished overnight but there sure was good sense in what has been said about the issue.

cheers


>What do you mean with 'overboard'?
>
>UPDATE: Ok, you mean that I 'go to extremes, especially as a result of enthusiasm'. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overboard
>
>Well, that's not the case from my point of view. What I'm trying to tell you is that your replies regularly contain remarks that can be interpreted as negative. I know that you never do this without reason and that it's always only after having felt being provoked. But in the case of JVP he's no longer able to react and therefore please be more careful. I mean it well.
>
>>Peter,
>>
>>I read EvanP's message and was very agreeable with it.
>>
>>But I think you are going overboard here.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>>Jim,
>>>
>>>Mind that JVP is no longer here and therefore can no longer read and react on opinions that people like you have about him. You write 'childish act' and in a recent reply to Rod you also ventilated several not so nice words about JVP. IMO, this is 'not done'. Evan Pauley wrote something about it in Re: Blocking IP address Thread #944327 Message #944679.
>>>
>>>Please, be more careful in expressing your opinions about someone who is no longer permitted to defend himself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I remember that "incident"... well, the aftermath, where you described in some detail the origin of your "name" and gave us all your real name (which is sooo plain compared to "Renior Vandalet" (though you say you based the "Vandalet" on the Seinfeld series, but there they spelled it "Vandalay" < s >).
>>>>
>>>>You're a big man, Jay, being able to forgive JohnP for that childish act! And look at all the trouble it now seems to have brought you!
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, Renoir, I'd say we should ALL put it behind us now and move on but JohnP's spokesman, Rodman, doesn't seem inclined to do so.
>>>>
>>>>So continue to have at it as long as you will.
>>>[snip]