[Lnc-business] correcting a Facebook falsehood

[Alicia Mattson]

<CAH> I disagree.  But I’m not going to bicker with you.  You never not
have an objection and that is fully your prerogative.  I don’t begrudge it
to you.</CAH>

You disagree with an objectively-measured count of how many times I
objected to auto-approval??  Math isn't an opinion, so I'm not sure how far
you can get disagreeing with it.  And though you disagree with me here, on
Facebook you very grudgingly agreed that I was "technically" correct, and
then engaged in some creative redefinition of the word "objection" so as to
pretend that although what you said about me was false, it was somehow
still true.

<CAH on FB> But here is the fact. Ms. Mattson has NEVER not objected to my
minutes.</CAH on FB>

What is that supposed to mean?  As already established, I have only once
objected to auto-approval.  Even after the LNC voted on the amendment I
wanted to take up that time, the minutes document that I didn't "object" to
the approval of those minutes in the Sept 2018 meeting because they were
approved "without objection" ... as were other several other sets of
minutes which had formal votes during LNC meetings.  I have abstained on
two email ballot votes to approve minutes, but I have not voted no this
term.  And complaining in such a manner certainly seems to be the
begrudging that you denied having in the first paragraph.

Sending lists of errors which need to be corrected in the draft minutes is
not "objecting" to the minutes in the sense you wish your readers to
believe.  You proceed to say that it is petty of me.  Are you saying it's
petty to insist that people's roll call votes be correctly recorded, that
motions be accurately recorded, that the appendices should not be mangled,
that the correct versions of reports be included, etc.?  When other people
send corrections, you do run to Facebook and complain about their
"objecting" to your minutes?

Now, I have objected when you have sent updated drafts in the wee hours of
the night before an LNC meeting the next morning and then asked us to vote
to approve them sight unseen.  (Yet on FB you claim, "And NEVER have they
not been produced well well well in advance of our next scheduled meeting.")
There is a pattern of you saying that my lists of corrections have all been
incorporated, when they have not, so I do insist on a reasonable time for
me and the rest of the LNC to review each update.


<CAH>The bigger problem here is gossiping with Andy Craig rather than
coming to me directly in the first place.  None of that conversation would
be necessary if Mr. Craig is telling the truth about gossipy LNC members.
</CAH>

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with this and the
related comments on FB.  You seem to be criticizing me for something you
imagined.  I was having no conversations with Andy Craig to instigate the
Facebook post in which you maligned me.  I presume his original comments on
the subject were primarily based on knowledge he has personally gained by
reading this list.  You certainly have plenty to say these days about the
chair's performance, so is it unfair for others to discuss yours as well?
Further on FB, you try to seize the position of moral superiority by
writing, "Nearly every religious tradition condemns gossip mongers for good
reason."  Are you not gossiping about me in the very FB post under
discussion here?  I will note that most religions also have plenty to say
about lying, accusing others without evidentiary basis, etc.

Even putting aside religious texts, the LP statement of principles says we
believe that "fraud must be banished from human relationships."  Lying is
perpetrating a fraud, and unfortunately even in the LP, the "party of
principle," there is much lying on Facebook in order to achieve internal
political goals.


<CAH> Carrying on FB debates on the LNC list is fantastically
inappropriate.  I will not carry on here further.</CAH>

Yet in recent days you have brought to the LNC list complaints about things
the chair has said on Facebook.  You were cosponsor on an email ballot for
a resolution that was the result of a Facebook fight you were engaged in
with socialists.  Recently you cosponsored a motion to censure a party
member for his Facebook comments.  Last term the LNC had a lot of
discussions about Arvin Vohra's Facebook posts.  So this feels more like a
way for you to avoid being accountable for your words, as opposed to it
being a sincere belief that what happens on Facebook stays on Facebook.


<CAH>I had a huge issue with the delay in getting me needed documents for
one thing.  I said it directly to you. </CAH>

This is yet another false smear you have perpetuated repeatedly, that I
have withheld needed documents from you.  I will address that more on
another day, lest I go down a long rabbit hole tonight.  And no, you didn't
just say it directly to me.  I saw you making lots of implications, if not
direct statements, on Facebook.  Others have informed me that in FB groups
where I am not a member and can't even see the posts that you've posted
false claims that I gave you "nothing" when you started the job.  I guess
it's a good thing you don't stoop to gossip.


<CAH> I spend at least 40 hours in preparing then.  I will stand by my
position any day that MOST people do not have an extra forty hours in the
three weeks following a meeting.  Ms Mattson did and I have nothing but
abject respect to her but that is unusual and is not necessary.</CAH>

I don't know why your are making assertions about how long it allegedly
took me to prepare minutes, since you would have no way of knowing.  Again,
your presumptions are stated as fact.  Not that it really matters, but it
did not take me 40 hours to prepare a set of regular LNC meeting minutes.
I didn't set timers, but my guess is that it took me in the neighborhood of
15 hours.


<CAH> There is absolutely no one who can say with a straight face that they
suffered some harm due to an extra week past auto approval. The only place
such pettiness belongs is in the Rs and Ds.  Not here.</CAH>

Straw man argument.  This discussion started when you falsely told the
public that, "Further, Ms. Mattson always objects so there is never any
chance for auto-approval."

When you write things like your FB comment that, "I will never speak an ill
word about Ms. Mattson" and then in the very same thread lie about me, call
me petty, etc., I don't know how you think your comments can be interpreted
as sincerity.  They feel more like a strange attempt at audience
manipulation.  You started this LNC term with a series of egregious attacks
on me and my job performance.

I've attached a screenshot of what the bottom of that FB thread looks like
for me.  There is no "write a comment" box for me to use, not in the post
in question or in any other on that page, and it does not appear to be a
group such that I must join before I can comment.  Since transparency is
one of your favorite bludgeon words, rather than you going to FB,
re-characterizing what I write here, and then replying to your own words,
perhaps you could post what I actually wrote so your readers can judge for
themselves.

-Alicia





On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 6:19 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> I disagree.  But I’m not going to bicker with you.  You never not have an
> objection and that is fully your prerogative.  I don’t begrudge it to you.
>
> The bigger problem here is gossiping with Andy Craig rather than coming to
> me directly in the first place.  None of that conversation would be
> necessary if Mr. Craig is telling the truth about gossipy LNC members.
>
> You may have the last word.  Carrying on FB debates on the LNC list is
> fantastically inappropriate.  I will not carry on here further.
>
> I think everyone would agree that if anyone has a complaint with anyone
> else it should be well known and discussed here, not whispered to Mr. Craig
> or anyone else.
>
> I had a huge issue with the delay in getting me needed documents for one
> thing.
>
> I said it directly to you.  I actually don’t believe Mr. Craig.  I don’t
> believe that any LNC member is the type of person that would gossip without
> talking directly to the person.
>
> If my faith is misplaced, then I would suggest said gossipers behave like
> an adult.
>
> I have absolutely nothing but respect for you Ms. Mattson and that has
> only increased over time.  You have a phenomenal mind.
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 3:18 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> I do not know why I am unable to comment on Ms. Harlos' Facebook page, but
>> since the subject matter is about what allegedly does or doesn't happen on
>> this list, I am going to say something here to defend myself.
>>
>> Yesterday, Ms. Harlos told her Facebook readers that when it comes to LNC
>> minutes, "Further, Ms. Mattson always objects so there is never any chance
>> for auto-approval. She objects because she disagrees with my style. That
>> is
>> her prerogative but the LNC already voted that my style was acceptable so
>> hers is a protest vote that makes it impossible to use the auto-approval.
>> Didn't know that did you?"
>>
>> That is demonstrably false, and I don't know why she would say such a
>> thing.
>>
>> This term I am only aware of ONE TIME that I objected so as to prevent
>> auto-approval of the minutes until the LNC could vote on a potential
>> amendment, and that was for the 7/3/18 minutes.  Yet in a public forum
>> this
>> one time was falsely portrayed as "always" so that there is allegedly
>> "never any chance" for auto-approval.  The other times that auto-approval
>> has not been used this term, it has been because the drafts were not
>> provided by the required dates to be eligible for auto-approval.
>>
>> Just want to clear that up.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: No Option to Comment.png
Type: image/png
Size: 717156 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20191101/2696a0b5/attachment-0001.png>