[Lnc-business] correcting a Facebook falsehood

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I posted a link to this discussion and invited readers to visit the link
and see your exact words and our exchange.

*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 6:02 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> 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. *
>> >
>> >
>>
>