On 10 Mar 2016, at 8:25 PM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 3/10/16 8:18 AM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
I was glad when I saw Jimbo indicate he was reaching out to James. At the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, maybe Jimbo should send James another email, this time extending a clearer olive branch. If we're past the point of no return on that, then so be it, but I would be happy to know that after three months of talking about and at each other, you guys _sincerely_ tried talking to each other.
I agree completely. My email, which seems so horrifying to a few people, was meant exactly as that. The truth is, I am genuinely bewildered and finding it very hard to understand why James says things that the entire rest of the board find contrary to fact.
Christ Jimmy, you sincerely told him he was either a liar, emotionally stunted, or psychologically damaged! You think *that* is extending an olive branch?!?
There is nothing horrible about encouraging him to think about whether emotion has blinded him. When so many other people who know the facts are telling you that you have it wrong, it's a good idea to pause and reflect.
Then it’s a good idea to stick to, you know, the facts. Did you really think that telling James that one option is he is a liar would be conducive to reflections?
And yes, it would have been more charitable and kind to include other options in that email. I wrote it as an opening to a dialogue, not as a formal statement of position to be analyzed in public. I invite people to think whether Pete's publishing of it was done in the interests of healing and harmony, rather than to further inflame and create drama.
“Charitable and kind”? What options might these have been?
If that email was the opening to a dialogue, then you might want to consider your own level of EQ!
Chris