issident and Joey Bishop have been all over my case because they do not like how I have responded to you, particularly in the questions I asked. As if they have the right to tell me how I am supposed to act or what I can say.

We "jumped" on you because you displayed an extreme lack of courtesy to Andrew before you gave him a chance to prove himself or damn himself on his own merits. I'm sorry, but there is a way you are supposed to act on this board, and that is part of the rules: You do not attack people based on assumptions before they even had a chance to say much. There are always rules of decorum on a public board, especially for a community as controversial as our own, and if you don't like such rules, then perhaps you would be better suited for an "invitation only" board that is not open to the public. Despite how Andrew may act after you did that, it still doesn't justify your per-emptively hostile behavior, because even if Andrew proves judgmental and non-trustworthy, the next person in his profession who approaches us may be genuine.

Yet, here you come with questions that can be seen as hostile to me. I find them insulting, as you assume immediately that my analysis of the situation must be false.

Let me say this straight out--I AGREE with you here. And you can rest assured I will be keeping a wary eye on Andrew, as I will anyone either within or outside of the community the moment they pull the "devil's advocate" spiel. He will be allowed to post here as long as he obeys the FAQs, but he has the potential on his own to make or break a good relationship with the MAA community. I stand behind my decision to give him the chance. He just gave himself a minor black eye, so let's see what happens after this.

OK, Joey and Dissident jump!

*jumps* Satisfied?