Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, July 29, 2005

Doug, Good luck!


Feel free to post this link in the ConyersBlog so that others might have the opportunity to discuss.

Reasonable people can come to opposite conclusions. The issue is, what's a reasonable way forward. I've outlined my comments and suggestions in the links below.

Feel free to take your time in reviewing the comments. There are other conversations going on besides the ConyersBlog.

If you don't take a step back and look at the larger issues, you may miss out something very important needed to ensure your success.

Congressman Conyers eloquently stated that bloggers are known for their independence:
Bloggers are not subject to corporate constraints or concerns, and have shown their independence over and over.

I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with others views. I'm asking that others take a broader perspective on the issues:

  • Are we truly looking at the communication with an open mind?

  • Are we using the information we've been given?

  • How can we move forward with a wider solution?

  • Other questions

    It is curious we are asked to "not defend" conclusions that seem reasonable, however unpopular. It is important to preserve the free exchange of ideas; not find excuses to ignore or discredit those who articulate themselves in unfamiliar ways.

    Your opponent is not going to agree with you or seem familiar. Get used to that. I suspect you will use their planned surprises as an excuse to distance yourself, when the correct approach should be to simply listen.

    You don't listen. You conclude without an open mind. And then you distance yourself from those who you do not agree with.

    The dance is over. I will not move to that tune.

    I take exception to anyone that, because we might come to a different conclusion, that somehow their "thinking" is called into question.

    I'm sensing there's some common ground, but I see a firm position from some. I can't make others move if they don't want to.

    As far as the particular comments about what is driving a particular concern: There's alot going on besides the issues you see written in the blog. I can't help you with the larger picture. That's something you'll have to figure out on your own.

    As to your specific comment, I can't help you with this comment. See exhibit 2 in this post. There's a reasonable "other view" of the matter. Some want to see it in a negative light. That's fine; but others don't see it as a problem.

    Rather it's the reaction of the Admin that seems peculiar. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the views or conclusions; I'm simply asking that others look at things from the perspective of, "This is how some are viewing the matters."

    If those reasonable perspectives want to be dismissed without consideration, or scoffed off as being the fruit of some sort of "inappropriate perspective" or "less than optimal confluence of events," in my view that is the core issue behind things. Some are asserting that the "conclusions of others" can only be correct if they fall within a set number of criteria. Recall, this is the same approach the RNC took to those who spoke out about the WMD issues and the Iraq invasion.

    Again, I'm not saying that the scope of the issues is the same. But I do sense an unusual comparison between how some are quick to assert "they in the RNC are doing something inappropriately by demanding X, Y, Z standards be met;" all the while from my perspective I see the same thing going in how the issues are being framed and discussed on the ConyersBlog: "If you don't agree with this conclusion, then you are wacky" is not the way I think all necessarily would subscribe to.

    If people want to argue over "what an if-then" statement means, then you're not making any headway. It's a credibility issue with how one would read a fair comment. The full problem is outlined here. I can't help people if they want to skim over the material, take it as a personal attack, or scoff off the material as if it were the fruit of "someone they no longer want to have confidence in." I let the words stand on their own.

    To the extent that my "personal reputation" or "my precedent" is or isn't consistent, is irrelevant. Simply take the words, as they are, without regard to what was said in the past; and look at them simply from the perspective of what do the words as they are before you say." Again, I'm not asking you or anyone agree or disagree; simply accept that someone else has another view.

    But at this juncture, it appears as though "my valid concerns," are being dismissed not because of the writing, but because of a characterization about the author and "whether one is or is not" of a particular frame of mind. That is irrelevant. Simply take the words as they are, review them, and accept that as they are. Again, whether you are agree or disagree isn't the issue. The issue is to what extent the community so quickly rejects with such asserted statements and tight deadlines X, Y, Z conditions without taking the time to look at the matter from someone else's perspective.

    Don't ask me to "not say" what I am seeing on the basis of "that is defending someone." On the contrary, I've though long and hard about these issues and carefully put down in writing how I came to the conclusion. If you have another view after reading the entire body of works, the links, and carefully let them sink in, maybe we can have a discussion.

    But at this juncture, if the public can expect nothing more than more of the "oh, you don't understand" or "that is not the right thing," I can assure you that that isn't going to work. I've reviewed the caselaw, the standards of evidence, and the jury instructions for that cause of action.

    If you prefer to ignore those criteria, I accept that. But, if you want to at least consider the possibility that there is another conclusion that is linked with something that resembles a careful consideration of the facts, caselaw, jury instructions, then you can review what I said.

    Again, I'm not asking you to agree or disagree. I'm asking that you consider that someone after reviewing just the text and comparing it to the existing statutes could reasonably come to a different conclusion. If you or others wish to discuss the nuances in the caselaw, that is fine; but if the conversation going forward is going to be more of the "oh, how could you conclude that" after I've carefully laid out the conclusions in detail, then we're not going anywhere.

    At this juncture, I have heard nothing from Admin. Nor have I had a satisfactory response to the small matter I attempted to speak to them about. To no avail. I cannot help them with their communication problem. All I can do is share with the blogosphere that there is an issue. I am not one to continue to "ask permission" when the response is nothing. We have time limits, deadlines, and cut off points, which I think you can appreciate.

    As to the particular issues that I have raised, I did point out my concerns. I have heard nothing. I cannot make others discuss the issues. If you wish to post more links in the Conyers Blog, or others do from my blog, that is fine. But if my content is going to get changed, or links added that is when I'm going to say something. Yet, I hear nothing back. So, I must assert; yet that gets no response.

    Indeed, despite all that, we're still waiting for admin to resolve this problematic link. Do you have an update on that?

    I can't make people cooperate who do not wish to cooperate. The fine bloggers on the ConyersBlog need to do what is best for them. I cannot make them read or not read what they want to review. Clearly, it is up for them to decide how they want to interpret the rules, whether they are being appropriately enforced.

    We're at a cross road. And time is ticking. The decision is: I have no plans to post on the ConyersBlog, and there are others who are pulling out as well, see Exhibit 14.

    Let the blogosphere decide which version they want. This is no different than the smear job on Durbin; but this time the DSM/DNC is doing it to their own.

    That's what's wacky about it. Let the blogosphere know: Things are getting a little strange on the ConyersBlog. I have a sense that the posters aren't getting the "full story" what Admin is doing.

    It is curious what people do when they can't win an argument: Stoop down and question other's mental capacity. Thank you, for showing that your arguments are not persuasive to me. You have kindly admitted defeat, and are now doing what the RNC does: Smearing others, asserting conclusions, and not looking at the other views.

    No need to spend your time talking about what is in the "other articles" when it appears you have not taken the time to consider the other views of "original offending post." A plain reading of those would can lead some to a different conclusion.

    Thus, my original concerns here have been confirmed, and I remain convinced the momentum is going in the wrong direction.

    I am not of the DNC or DSM. I am a right wing conservative hawk.

    As a Republican, I can assure that they are likely going to win, not because they deserve it or are lawful, but because the Republicans have opponents that will not listen, even when the answer is given them on a plate as I have done.

    You have been given everything you need to defeat them, and have thrown it back with innuendo. That is not appropriate.

    You are foolish and deserve to be defeated. Not because your cause is lacking, but merely to prove a point: That foolish people, when they do not listen, deserve to have their nose rubbed in their errors.

    Perhaps then, you will awaken. I shall not wait for you or others to awaken from your coma. It is unfortunate that it must get far stinkier and the reality rubbed in far too many people's faces for the sufficient catalyst to occur.

    This is actually happening: They are planning to trash your Constitution.

    Going forward, we will no longer have contact as we wage this battle from different directions.

    Hoc Voluerunt!