Re: I know I'm asking for it (was Re: A MooTH! A THing!)

On May 9, 2012, at 1:37 PM, Kelley Robbins wrote:


> But this forum, in which we all agreed to treat each other with mutual respect when we joined, is not the place for exercising that abusive, albeit entertaining, talent.

That is an excellent statement, a fair point, and a reasonable request. I will do my very best to make sure that what outbursts I display are either minimized or on more of an even keel. I hope that you will continue to push back when necessary. I'm sure we'll find the right balance eventually.

But I'll start being nicer *later*.



> You just assumed that their public silence must equate to a lack of moral fiber and blatant disregard and disrespect for a fellow Housemate.

Yes. I did, in fact. Moreover, I do. That silence, though, should not be confused with a lack of speech.

Whatever private or public emails have been sent regarding this situation make little difference regarding the financial burden to which Deb finds herself exposed. The only noise that should be made is the ringing of the cash register at the hotel. Anything else is, in fact, evidence of that blatant disregard and disrespect for a fellow housemate's financial well-being. They helped to create this situation, and they are the proximate cause of Deb's difficulty. That simply does equate to a lack of moral fiber. There are no shades of grey here.

This deal has been in place for four months. Those who agreed had four months to live up to their commitments. Those who made that commitment should not have done so without the means to honor it. Discovering problems now, or claiming that cash-free communication -- no matter how supportive -- somehow mitigates the looming disaster is nothing but an abdication of personal responsibility. If one of those who had committed were somehow trying to justify their current actions, or to think that they were somehow doing right, it would only represent a self-serving, self-deceiving way of profiting by harming another.

Your distinction between the charity and decency of the list members seeking to defray Deb's costs and those list members whose irresponsibility have precipitated the situation is one I do value. I would have hoped that all the members of this list who seem, like you, to embrace decency and fairness would have behaved in as upright a fashion. In simple fact, there is a group that has not. It is my sincere hope that this group represents only a minority of list members.

I hope even more sincerely that those people, armed with the reminder of Deb's situation, find themselves motivated to do right. I hope that the decency and fairness that people display around them can remind them how to do right. I hope very strongly that my comments will soon show themselves to be applicable to no one at all.


So while I will take your request for more gentility under serious consideration, I do regret that you included with it your defense of deadbeats. I'm afraid, Kelley, that causing financial harm to a member of this list is not something about which I have it in me to be kind. Nor, honestly, do I believe it to be something that deserves respect. I believe strongly that such behavior is far more damaging than mine, and that trying to be understanding and sympathetic to those actions would be more damaging yet.


As for personal attacks on me: There is no way in which your reasonable request could be interpreted as an attack. If should you ever feel the need to make one, however, please feel free to request any information you need. I have a wide collection of terrible habits and personality shortcomings, many of which could be referenced humorously in a public insult without the drawback of falsehood. Failing that, just try to imagine me as a pockmarked blob of inadequacy, furiously typing in a basement, cackling away the whole time. I have faith that you'll manage well.