Whom one SENDS a PM to is not a secret. The fact that one GETS a PM from someone might under some circumstances require their permission to mention. How can this be confusing to you? I sent a PM to imp yesterday. Is that a secret? I sent one to Rambi yesterday. Is that a secret? Give me a break.
You posted this:
It was also clear that other people were singled out for not participating appropriately- and emailed, pm'ed, and called at home to be dressed down for their failure to comply.
You wrote the above, and don't expect those in the group being so described to want substantiation?
You wanted to use the stuff, so you compromised your friends (if they minded.) Those who are being accused often want to face their accuser. It's a phenomenon of which you may have heard.
What you revealed by your weakness in posting that is interesting. You should be glad.
There was some truth to your claim, because kholt felt "dressed down" by posts from those less tepid or more more zealous than she in condemnation of CH's actions toward Poet, me and others. As far as the phonecall you mentioned is concerned, we both understand what happened there, and it's embarrassing, I can tell, but not at all serious. I truly don't give a darn about it, except to feel bad for the position you've put Rambi in by not being able to resist mentioning the single phone call as though it were a part of a veritable telephone tree! But is sure is no big deal.
Since you have raised the matter of confusing antecedents, it might be acceptable to mention that the "called at home" that follows "people" above was actually a call at home, to one person. The sentence structure makes it seem as though "people" were called at home and "dressed down." The reality is that one person was "called at home" by a friend, and not "dressed down." |
