Actually, you misunderstood. "Transparency" is Grainne's word, and goal, not mine. And the reason for Jewel's banning wasn't transparent to me.
It would, though, have admittedly made her feel put "on the spot" had she been keeping a non-transparent secret about why she banned Jewel. She wasn't, though. It is good, I think, that that suspicion has been laid to rest. I'm not the only one who's had it.
You are probably right, though. A person, even if they have promised transparency, shouldn't be asked if non-transparent reasons were actually the operative ones. It occurred to me, actually, to PM the query. But I thought, "transparent," and asked publicly instead. Fortunately, no harm of any sort was done.
But wait: Have you changed your mind about a person having the "right" to threaten to post the actual texts of private, personal emails he claims he has, and which establish an "intimate" relationship, on public threads, unless the recipient of their attentions is compliant to his wishes to interact with him? Would you not defend that right today?
Edit: I want Grainne to note that it was you, not I, who stirred this pot yesterday, albeit with allusion, not facts. But if she wants to ban me for the followup, I won't complain, since she has asked for pots not to be stirred. |
