Re: I will keep it simple for Kafka
This morning I was greeted "Good Morning, Jim" . How nice, a post from
my friend Glen.
It was public. I read his lecture to me of how the Robin operates,
details of which I need not burden readers about because you have read
it. He stated that he had read and understood what I said and had any of
those postings been written about him publically , he would have felt
that someone simply wanted to start a fight.
So Glen has stated his opinion of what HE thought I said. Then he
lectured me some more and in effct accused me of personally attacking
SC, BZ and CHF.
I thought , no not again. So I posted him a private post to explain that
he may have read, but he did not understand. That I am a mature and
intelligent person and accept responsibility for what I say. That I need
no police telling me that what I very carefully write is a personal
attack. My article discussed AHS policy and that the Hosta Police have
mis-interpreted my meaning. They are sitting in judgment and have made a
bad judgmet call. I did not discuss why HE , Glen, was attacking me
personally. I assumed that since he was a hosta Secret Policemen in the
past, he still was. He informed me that he was no longer a Hosta
policeman, that there was a new slate. This still didn't satisfy me why
he was getting involved personally but I didn't pursue this question.
He stated that "rightly or wrongly, my interpretation of the other two
was that you had taken aim at BZ and Falstad and hit them broadside with
I tried to explain my intent for writing my posts...that I was
discussing that IAC Policies were bad ones doing more harm than good to
the Society. I reviewed what I was trying to do and repeated that I
made no such personal attack as he claimed.
He explained eloquently that " As with so much else in the world of
words, belief is sadly not important anymore...it is PERCEPTION. I feel
that you were perceived (and by me too) as making an inappropriate
secondary attack on these individuals as well as the appropriate attack
on the policies and ideas."
He continued his lecture, explaining that he did not do it (charge me
with personal attack)
without reading the posts again and again and asking people here in
Springfield what they felt....The concensus was that the individuals
would take personal offence at the way they had been spoken about."
There is the outline for your next book, Mr Kafka. someone who is not
involved in any way, who does not have backgound facts, reads and
understands immediately that I am guilty of attacking personally three
people which he names. I know that this is utter nonsense and I am
offended by such charges. But I am guilty because " perception" is more
important than "belief" according to our brilliant judge of human
nature. He is quite sure of this because the concensus of people he
talked to in Springfield VT. was they would take personal offense at the
way they had been spoken about ( were they recipients of electronic mail
on the AHS Robin, I presume).
So I am guilty by concensus by the guy in the hardware store, the
grocery store, the parking lot or where ever the trial in absentia was
held by Judge Williams in Springfield VT...........................
KAFKA, WHERE ARE YOU? ..
To sign-off this list, send email to email@example.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN