something Sahar could never manage, and while that's only one small piece of our reasoning for dismissing her, it is her conduct and not her opinions that were the important consideration for us.

to disagree with us, provided you're not legitimately arguing for discriminatory viewpoints. We're not always right. The key is to have those discussions without resorting to personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric. That's

As far as how it relates to political discussions - you should all know, although we don't always do the best job of showing it, that we don't want to prevent you from having discussions about controversial topics. You're allowed

with, she could never accept criticism or diplomacy, and in the end her bad attitude towards the rest of us just got to be too much for us to continue putting up with.

do many of us. And it's partly out of respect for that history that we won't divulge the full nature of what was at stake in our considerations. But what it ultimately comes down to is that she was a difficult person to reason

colleagues but as people Sahar supposedly considered friends. I've known her the whole time I've been on MS - she made her account 2 months before me and was made contributor 6 months before. We have a long history together, as

I know that that's not a very clear explanation, but we want to keep things professional. And it might be diplomatic, but everything I wrote is the truth. Believe me, it was a very difficult decision for us, not just as