User:Howard C. Berkowitz/B

I fully accept this, but I also expect to have other principles respected, including:

1. Do not speak to me in a peremptory manner unless you have actual authority to give orders. A Constable may say "you shall desist", but an ordinary member is offensive when not making it clear that their statement is individual opinion.

2. Do not cite "legality" unless there is clearly relevant law that applies to CZ.

3. Do not demand that you be treated as the only expert on a subject, unless, possibly, the EC/EPA has ruled you are the only qualified expert. It is certainly inappropriate for one Editor to attack the qualifications of another Editor outside a judicial process..

4. Do not try to state my motivations, unless the Telepathic Personnel Administrators have recognized your expertise in mind-reading.

5. Accept that a constant criticism of past work takes on the character of personal criticism. When do the complaints, without documentation, about closed deliberations of the Charter Committee stop?

6. Allow for individual choice: Martin may wish to be called Martin, but I do not wish to be called Howard by him. It is entirely possible to respect both positions.

Remember that such things as coldly formal speech are a classic means of expressing displeasure. Is it really the position that Citizens cannot express displeasure?