Eowyn, thanks for the reminder that we should be specific when we have a concern. It's similar to sourcing the profiles we work on:
When we have a concern we should provide sufficient evidence (and use the right channels) so that the problem can be clearly understood and acted upon/resolved.
It would have been more helpful if Dale had provided the specific words shared with him by the member. (If using g2g, it would not be appropriate to include the identification of the specific member; save that for the Problems with Members form.)
Trudy, the reason it's a member issue, not just a sourcing issue, is that Dale is reporting that a Leader told him he shouldn't source the way he's sourcing, when from the responses here, such sourcing is acceptable to most. (I concur, I'd rather see sources like Dale's provided than no sources at all; if someone wants to convert them to inline citations, by all means, go ahead.)
Dale, I continue to be amazed at differences in interpretation-- all the more reason for all of us to be more specific. You read Eowyn's response above and responded as you did; I read Eowyn's response and had a completely different response.
You also took one Leader's response to you (about the sourcing style) and extrapolated that to the entire Leader body. I read Eowyn's response that such generalizations are not helpful in identifying and resolving the problem.
And no where in her response do I see sufficient evidence to conclude that: "It is apparent that asking questions that relate to how things should be done here, to find out the overall feelings of the members [which, by the way, is not what you did in your original post], is something you do not approve of"
In fact, I see her suggesting better ways to resolve such issues.