[Myrtle]

M.......

Things are getting confused here. Instead of me quoting you quoting me quoting you, let me try it a different way......

The concept of ‘beyond the slightest hint of impropriety” is not number one on my list of ethical considerations, but where the issue is combined with power over others, it’s not far down on that list either.

Doing what one actually believes is right at the top. The problem with that is what happens when what one actually believes is right is not right? Shouldn't one leave room in any consideration that what one believes is correct may not be? Leaving that door open, allows one to be open minded enough to revisit a situation when it is called for.

That is what I have been asking you to do here.

I can’t say for sure what the real intent of JW’s post was. Why? Because words can be interpreted in different ways by different people. I saw the warning that you gave him. It was clear & fair. IMO, it’s 50/50 as to whether or not he was testing you with his subsequent post. As far as my opinion as to whether he should be banned or not? Honestly, I really don’t remember many of his posts. All I can say is nothing sticks out in my mind as being outrageous, where I can remember many other posts from other posters that could be considered that. Please don’t misinterpret what I just said. Just because I don’t remember all of his posts, doesn’t mean that some of them weren’t trolling.

It seems to me that what you might be saying is that this last post was the straw that broke the camels back?

Again, for the record: He made a post that he was banned for. The complication here is that he was banned by you, for attacking you. You hold the power. You must have the wisdom to use that power appropriately. I think you could have done it another way, and I’ve outlined that in an earlier post......that’s all.

You will get no argument from me when you hold ‘standing up for what you believe in’ as being more important than ‘striving to avoid any hint of possible impropriety’ when comparing those two virtues in an absolute vacuum. But this situation is not an absolute vacuum. I believe further examination is called for, and by saying that, I am standing up for what I believe in, as I believe you are. We have a disagreement. I feel no ill will or malice towards you because we disagree on this point. I will continue to debate with you on this issue in an attempt to achieve clarity.

You noted that just because something involves one personally, that it does not necessarily mean that they are incapable of making an objective determination about it. We do not agree on this point. I believe that a more appropriate question is......to what degree can some someone who is personally involved make a totally objective decision. My experience tells me that it is less than 100%. If it’s less, how much less? Does the degree of objectivity achieved then not have something to do with the decision?

At this time, for the sake of clarity, I’ll leave the ‘separation of church and state’ for anther post.

As far as “abuse of power’? Perhaps semantics may intervene. Is there a difference between abuse and misuse?