[ QUOTE ]
I find being called a liar to be the most offensive accusation a person can throw at me. I have lied about nothing regarding these events. Had Mason's message stayed private and turned into a private conversation between paul and mason, it is likely that things would have turned out differently. You may disagree with my hypothesis, you may tell me I am ugly and incompetent, but you are very much out of line in calling me a liar.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one embarrassing back-pedal job. It betrays a sense of regret over sending such a juvenile and heavy-handed PM in the first place. If you were confident the content of the PM was fair and appropriate, you'd have no problem with its publication.

I've had plenty of heated debates via email in the context of my line of work, and I would not have a problem with the public airing of any of them -- unless I felt, in retrospect, that I had erred in any minor or massive fashion. I would prefer that such exchanges remain private, but a public airing isn't going to change the debate. When I make an argument that's intended to be read privately, I'm not going to be upset if it's dragged into the public unless I regret the argument I've made.

If you believe that his comparison merited action, at least that's more defensible. But it's not the same as walking into a business and audibly shouting that the owner is a Nazi. Rather, in this case, the comparison was made for effect in an environment that is, by its very nature, designed for the expression of opinion -- yep, even heated opinion.

If you think that Paul's comparison convinced your readers that you fall in line with the Third Reich, come off the ledge. We can deal with simile and even hyperbole. When you post a substantive explanation regarding what was wrong with Paul's ORIGINAL post, we can move forward. But stop selling the lame "privacy violation" invention. We're not buying.