I remain largely content with the decision making process. Most likely a diversion closer than MAN would have been chosen had the fuel been less.
rossma reports that the pax were treated to a rather more spectacular show than was viewed by the cockpit
Once the situation was sorted out, the continuation decision was made and the workload had settled down, it may have helped to have offered a more complete explanation to the pax -- from rossma's account, it does not seem one was made.
rossma also leaves open the question whether any crew came back to inspect the engine -- mind you in the post 9/11 environment, sending a flight crew member back into the cabin for inspection may no longer be an option; also the workload may have precluded sending any flight crew back and this duty may now be delegated to the cabin crew.
Also he did not say whether any external damage was apparent or not.