[Lnc-business] correcting a Facebook falsehood

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

You are not blocked.  Perhaps you need to be a friend.  Send me a friend
request.  You should be able to respond and I will never block you from
responding.  I am not going to carry on a FB debate here, nor am I going to
pass your notes.  You are welcome to participate.  It is not in a group it
is on my personal page.  I really have no idea why you can't post.  Andy
Craig is not a friend and can post.  Or alternatively if you want to have
the conversation on your page, if I can post there.

Ms. Mattson I don't wish any fight with you.  Never speaking ill does not
mean pointing out the typical human foibles.  By never speaking ill, I mean
impugning your character, which I will never do.  Yes, you can be petty.  I
can be petty.  I can be bitchy, I can be inaccurate, I can be a lot of
things.  But I never do so from lack of integrity and never do you.  We are
human.  Humans do silly things.  You want to clarify my post as a lie, and
that is your right, and I acknowledge I failed to connect the dots I wish
to.

But point here remains, either Andy Craig was lying or LNC members are
gossiping to him.  I choose to believe LNC members would not gossip without
making their allegations here first.  I have never said anything about you
anywhere that I have not first said to you.  I have told you many times
that I feel what you do with the minutes is petty.  I still believe that.
But I believe YOU don't see it that way and come at your position honestly.

The problem in that thread is Andy Craig claiming LNC members are
complaining about things  that if true, they have not handled here.
Everyone should be talking to each other first.  You will NEVER find me
saying anything about you, I have not first said to you.

By never speaking ill, it means insulting your being, your character, your
intergrity, your ability, or your honour.  I never ever will.

I would like to relate a story that happened during the Secretary race
campaign.  You may not care.  But this is what I mean.  I was ... I think
in Alabama, it is blur, at a meet and greet.  There were prepared questions
that all candidates were requested to answer.  The question to me was what
is the worst thing about your opponent.  I told them I would not engage in
that kind of campaigning.  They said to me, well what if we will not vote
for someone who cannot answer that question.  I said, then I am not the
candidate for you.

If you did have some real problems with integrity I would say them.  But
you don't.  I do think you fail to see that we agree more than disagree,
and many of the issues that are important to you are important to me,
particularly the gamesmanship with the convention funds.  The artificial
factional lines need to be a thing of the past.  If I need to do more to
make that happen, ask, and I will.

I clarified my sloppily connected point.  You can believe it was a lie, but
I think that would be uncharitable.  But I will not repeat that
clarification here.  Anyone can go to my FB page to read.

I would rather you and I work together rather than arguing over minutes.
The LNC itself has made it clear that they don't care - and are fine with
them as they are.  We can spend our time making some real needed reform.

If you took any of my wording as a personal character insult, I did not
intend that.  I do not know how much more clearly I can express my respect
for you for you to believe it.

*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. *



On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:04 AM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> <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. *
> >
> >
>