On 10 Mar 2016, at 8:25 PM, Jimmy Wales
<jimmywales(a)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