On 7/14/05, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Michael Turley" wrote
I want to trust a bureaucrat to judge when it is
most appropriate for
them to recuse themselves from an issue.
Just do so, then. Ed doesn't need any more data, in fact. He can ask
another bureaucrat to call this one, or he can do it himself.
Please don't cut single sentences out of the context of a coherent
whole paragraph of mine to find a point to object to. You removed the
rest of my paragraph in which I illustrated that Ed confirmed that I
do, in fact, have the trustworthiness that I want.
I don't think another straw poll is a good thing,
at all. I don't think
qualifying the bureaucrat status case-by-case is good, either. My own
feelings about Ed are that his avuncularity has slipped badly on this issue;
but that has nothing to do with his capacity to decide the outcome. And I
don't think any amount of civility makes up for schisms.
Ed asked whether he should recuse himself by asking for objections.
You should not fault those who replied to his request in good faith.
A discussion of disagreements is to be commended, not condemned.
Civility and mutual respect are the difference between disagreement
and schism. It seems to me we have simple disagreement and nothing
more.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused