ADMIN/ MEMB: Prospective Members

[Phyllis]

Cindy wrote:

> Over the last few days, several people have claimed that this or 
> that piece of information is "not relevant," as though to suggest 
> that the person sharing the piece of information had erred in doing 
> so.  <snip> Therefore, I think it is relevant and very helpful for 
> all of us to speak freely without worrying someone will challenge 
> various factual statements as "not relevant."  It does tend to 
> chill the free-flowing nature that a discussion like this ought to 
> have - giving it almost an adversarial, courtroom feeling.

Just to clarify - I was not in any way attempting to chill the 
discussion, impose an "adversarial, courtroom feeling" or assert that 
Tom had erred in pointing out a person's MEG status.  I didn't say 
that it wasn't relevant, I just said that I wasn't sure why it was.  
I was (and still am) confused about why a person's MEG status is 
relevant to whether or not they would be able to make a valuable 
contribution to FAQ.  Frankly, I feel that it's adversarial and 
discussion-chilling to say that we shouldn't raise questions about 
why a certain point is relevant.

If someone could explain to me why a person's MEG status is relevant 
to whether or not they should be asked to join FAQ, I would most 
appreciate it.  

~Phyllis