1. “you’ll have to excuse my lack of empathy, the “mess” is entirely his own making, and he’s hardly the only one who will pay some kind of price.”

Absolutely agree with you. Didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.

2. “I can’t quite get my head around the difference between linking to scandal (daily, for weeks on end) and reporting on another element of it”

That’s a fair critique. Something that goes on pretty often in blogs – it’s a good question.

I’m not sure what the difference is – I do know that in my mind, if I link to something, it’s often more about one or two things: either I don’t have enough time to write more, I don’t really feel it deserves more time, or it doesn’t require more time.

Or – I’m offering the link for people to go check out. I’m not promoting one way or the other.

Does that still make linking any different than reporting on an element of the thing to which you’ve linked?

Well – you got me – it’s a fine line, not everyone’s line. I’d say a lot of it goes to intent, but from the perspective of impact, maybe you are right. Will think about that.

Thanks for commenting.

About this Dann thing: We all had our reservations. But I wanted to let this woman tell her story–because I think it speaks to a pattern–and because Jessica Utovich remains in hiding, and so we’ve never gotten the “how” behind his machinations. In the end it was this sort of behavior that led to a hostile work environment. And it’s hard to feel bad for a man who has now had two opportunities to appologize to Cindy Stankoski, but didn’t.

And I like your stuff too, Jill.

But I agree – not everyone might read it that way. Just describing it the way I read it – which I did do! so you got me there.

Plus there’s the Stephanie Studebaker angle – let them work it out outside the glare of the blogs etc. I have no interest in compounding his problems. He’s done what we wanted him to do and what he should have done in the first place. Let’s move on to the next challenge.