3/29/10
Have you ever found yourself in a written (or verbal) misunderstanding with another person and, despite your repeated attempts to unsnarl the tangle, the other person continues to misinterpret a portion of an original statement and/or action with additional misinterpretation of follow-up contacts?
Just such a situation is what I and Paul find ourselves in with Wendy McElroy. It all appears to have started with a second email Paul wrote to Wendy, which followed her inclusion in her blog entry of March 3 2010 of a sizable quote from the first email Paul wrote to her on February 26 in regards to a previous blog entry she had made. (Got all that? :) Paul had already been very pleased to receive an email response from Wendy, top posted to that first message of his:
Subject: Re: The golden days of non-voting
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:04:58 -0500
From: Wendy McElroy
To: Paul Wakfer
References: <4B877B99.6010100@morelife.org>
Mark your calendar, Paul. This is the day that you convinced a
libertarian zealot to swerve from a course-in-motion. In truth, I do not
and did not want to rehash the reasons to eschew Ron Paul. For one
thing...wow, the boredom! I remember Murray losing his temper with an
IHS student who asked him "But what about the roads in a free market
system? None would be built!" When I reproached him gently afterward, he
explained that he'd answered that question at least 500 times and 501
was his limit. I feel the same way about all-things-Ron-Paul.
So...enough already.
Best to you, my friend,
Wendy
Paul's second email:
Subject: Use of my writing and name
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:01:46 -0700
From: Paul Wakfer
Organization: MoreLife
To: Wendy McElroy
Hi Wendy,
I was pleased to see your blog entry quoting most of what I sent you in
response to your "Golden Days of Non-Voting" entry, but you
unintentionally did me a disservice by attributing to only initials
rather than my full name. In future be aware of the following, which
both I and Kitty have been telling everyone with whom we relate. We are
totally convinced that full openness and identification is absolutely
necessary if social progress to a fully free society is ever to happen.
Unless I contract with a person beforehand, everything that I send hir
is as much hirs as it is mine to do with as s/he pleases. The only
difference in use entitlement between such persons relates to who is the
creator/originator of it. In addition, it is my desire and request that
if anything originating with me is used by someone else that person
provide at least my full name as the originator and preferably also a
link to where more information about me can be found.
--Paul
Wendy's brief reply (top posted):
Subject: Re: Use of my writing and name
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:52:39 -0500
From: Wendy McElroy
To: Paul Wakfer
References: <4B919B6A.4060407@morelife.org>
My apologies Paul. It is blog policy to not identify people unless
explicitly given permission to do so and I had no idea what was your
attitude toward correspondence. I will not make the same mistake again.
Best,
Wendy
After this we both thought that Wendy would replace "PW" with "Paul Wakfer" in that blog entry, or simply use his full name in the future with anything she used of what he wrote. In the meantime, Paul and I were in the midst of initiating the Google Group "Libertarian Critique" with its stated purpose: "To originate/discuss critical analyses of libertarian philosophy, both theory and applications, particularly including individualist market anarchism. The aim is not to criticize/blame, but rather to discover/elucidate a consistent/complete philosophical basis for a fully self-ordered free society." (Original published version of Why and How of This Group from March 7 2010) This had been planned for many weeks as a way of trying to engage liberty promoting writers in substantive discussion on essential issues, which we had found to not be really possible at blogs or article comments, if comments are enabled at all. (See my previous Kitty Reflects, last April, as an example of the type of response that comes from some libertarian bloggers.)
Because the use of personally transmitted information (whether by email, letters or verbally) is an essential issue concerning social interaction, I and Paul agreed that this recent situation with Wendy would be a good example of the mistaken view (by our philosophical basis) held by many libertarians, and most others. (A much earlier example - July 2003 - of this is one recorded at Self-Sovereign Individual Project Dialogues.) Therefore Paul began the third thread of this group with that very first email that he sent to her on February 26, including the title of Wendy's blog entry, "The Golden Days of Non-Voting" - that thread's first post.
Paul made a reply to that post himself the next afternoon, March 8 - and changed the title of the thread. He prefaced it with the following by way of explanation to readers: "However, Wendy used only my initials in attribution of the quote of my response to her, so I sent the following email to hir with the subject: Use of my writing and name". He shortly later that same day replied to that email of Wendy's publicly by way of response to this second message in the thread at Libertarian Critique, and - as he states in that message - sent her an invitation via Google to join the group.
- Show quoted text -
Wendy, because the use of people's names and the text of their personal
messages is a fundamental issue of social philosophy potentially
involving so-called "rights" to (intellectual) property and to privacy,
I would like to know why this is *your* policy for *your* blog (and all
your other email relationships to others?). As you well know,
Methodological Individualism 101 teaches that blogs can't have policies
(or any other human actions/evaluations). Only people can.
meta
I have copied the above to Wendy and separately sent her an invitation
to join this group and respond here. I sincerely hope that she does.
/meta
--Paul Wakfer
Wendy's reply came the next day, March 9, top posted to the invitation via Google to join Libertarian Critique:
Subject: Re: Google Groups: You've been invited to Libertarian Critique
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:19:44 -0500
From: Wendy McElroy
To: Paul Wakfer
Hello Paul:
I don't want to convert an unintentional mistake for which I've
apologized into a public discussion. I've told you it will not happen
again. Honestly, it will not. I have deleted the offending post. What
else can I do?
Best wishes,
Wendy
noreply@googlegroups.com wrote:
> Paul Antonik Wakfer paul@morelife.org has invited you to join the Libertarian
> Critique group with this message:
>
> Hi Wendy,
>
> I have posted our previous exchange and responded to your latest message on
> this new group because I think that all such discussions are better held in
> public so that others can learn from them and/or contribute to them.
>
> I sincerely hope that you will join this group, the purpose of which is
> appended, in order to enter into dialog about critiques/questions related to
> your own writings (at the least) which are placed on the group. I am more than
> happy to explain, also in a public post, why I do not wish to make these
> critiques/questions at the forum on your blog's website, if you wish to know.
>
> --Paul
>
>
> Here is the group's description:
>
> To originate/discuss critical analyses of libertarian philosophy, both theory
> and applications, particularly including individualist market anarchism. The
> aim is not to criticize/blame, but rather to discover/elucidate a consistent/
> complete philosophical basis for a fully self-ordered free society.
In the meantime, back in the late afternoon of March 8 when Paul posted his message, I thought it worthwhile for others that I contribute a comment on this post of Paul's, which I did a few hours later. It contains pertinent portions of an email exchange I had with her a few months previously, now expressing surprise at her response to Paul and closing with:
It is highly likely that Wendy's writing and speaking schedule, in
addition with her personal life "on a farm in North America", keeps her
on the go and she simply forgot the contents of my earlier emails, even
though they reference Paul. I had hoped then - and do so even more now -
that Wendy will engage in discussion regarding this essential aspect of
interpersonal communication.
To Wendy's email of March 9 above, Paul responded:
Subject: How did this misunderstanding occur?
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:23:13 -0700
From: Paul Wakfer
Organization: MoreLife
To: Wendy McElroy
References: <4B96BB70.8090003@wendymcelroy.com>
Wendy, I am totally mortified by your response. This has happened so
many times with so many people who I thoroughly admired and wanted to be
friends with, but somehow ended up antagonizing. Please, please help me
to understand what mistake I made with you.
Wendy McElroy wrote:
> Hello Paul:
>
> I don't want to convert an unintentional mistake for which I've
> apologized into a public discussion.
The discussion would not be about your "mistake", but about the
fundamental problems of anonymity and personal messages as property. I
thought that this would be clear from the following passages in my first
email to you about this:
"[I and Kitty] are totally convinced that full openness and
identification is absolutely necessary if social progress to a fully
free society is ever to happen.
"Unless I contract with a person beforehand, everything that I send hir
is as much hirs as it is mine to do with as s/he pleases. The only
difference in use entitlement between such persons relates to who is the
creator/originator of it. In addition, it is my desire and request that
if anything originating with me is used by someone else that person
provide at least my full name as the originator and preferably also a
link to where more information about me can be found."
Is it not clear that I think this is an important general principle? -
that such prior contracts are always necessary and that without them the
receiver is entitled to do whatever s/he pleases with the received
information, including its authorship?
In addition, the group message of which I sent you a copy states:
"Wendy, because the use of people's names and the text of their personal
messages is a fundamental issue of social philosophy potentially
involving so-called "rights" to (intellectual) property and to privacy,
I would like to know why this is *your* policy for *your* blog (and all
your other email relationships to others?). As you well know,
Methodological Individualism 101 teaches that blogs can't have policies
(or any other human actions/evaluations). Only people can."
I am perplexed that I was successful with convincing you to not waste
your precious time on political libertarians, but met with disaster in
this attempt to engage you in serious discussion on a fundamental issue
of social philosophy. How am I supposed to question a few points within
a blog post you have written without it appearing to you that I
vehemently disagree with the entire thing?
> I've told you it will not happen
> again. Honestly, it will not.
Wendy, there was no thought in my mind of questioning that. From where,
in what I wrote, do you get the idea that I did not believe you? I truly
want to know so as to understand how my phrasings were not met with the
understanding I hoped for and to be able to improve these in the future.
> I have deleted the offending post.
Wendy, that was the worst thing that you could do to me! I already told
you that I was *pleased* to see it there. I never exaggerate or
speak/write disingenuously. The post was important for you and totally
inoffensive to me. There was no "disservice" in total, but only a
reduced amount of benefit to me because of the lack of full attribution
to me.
> What else can I do?
Please, please put back that post as it was (or better still if you can
put it back with my full name in it). By deleting it you have now
destroyed my link to it and the entire purpose of the related messages
on my new group Libertarian Critique. Please read again my sincere (I am
never anything else - I do not even know how to be anything else)
statement of the purpose of that group.
What else can *I* do to gain your understanding and regain your friendship?
With deepest admiration and desired friendship, currently suffering
great discouragement,
--Paul
Our confusion was great and disappointment equally so when Paul received the following from Wendy the following day, again top posted:
Subject: Re: How did this misunderstanding occur?
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:46:44 -0500
From: Wendy McElroy
To: Paul Wakfer
References: <4B96BB70.8090003@wendymcelroy.com> <4B96D861.2080803@morelife.org>
Paul, I am not at all antagonized but, clearly, I am making matters
worse. For example, when I mentioned "blog policy" I never intended to
imply that I am not entirely in charge of that policy; such an
interpretation never crossed my mind. I have no wish to create ill will
or a rift of any kind. Indeed, I am mystified at why we are in conflict.
I think it is best for me to back off from the matter...with all good
will. Let's chalk it up to a misunderstanding, okay?
Best to you and Kitty,
Wendy
Our utter confusion over this email included wondering if Wendy read any further than Paul's intro to his long inline message which he had placed above that additional response and therefore might possibly be interpreted as the whole of a top posted reply, especially since her emails to us were always top posted only - nothing inline/interleaved. (See a good description of why this communication response style is so essential and a non-evaluative description of posting sytles in general.) Paul had actually begged Wendy to reinstate the blog entry she had removed! But where is her response to that and the rest he wrote below that top posted preface? "Why was this happening?", we asked ourselves - and tried to understand what we had written (or omitted) that had contributed to this massive confusion. Her (now removed) blog entry was very good and having Paul's comments included, even it not clear to anyone that they were his, added to its worth to us and we think to others too. We were baffled. Why would she try to rewrite history by removing that posted item?
Note that since the incident above we have decided that when responding to anyone who only does top posting (which we generally will only do for a short while unless/until they change to inline style) with short introductory remarks prior to the previous message, it should always be immediately followed with a "See more below" line.
I thought possibly that I could send her a short email that would communicate our sincere good will towards her but also our confusion and disappointment over what was taking place:
Subject: High Hopes
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:15:34 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Organization: MoreLife
To: Wendy McElroy
Wendy, we had such high hopes, based on your background and much of your
writings, for substantive dialog with you in a public forum. Now that
appears to be entirely gone - with your removal of your blog entry
containing quotes from Paul, even with only his initials instead of his
full name - and no response from you to the actual contents of Paul's
recent emails to you.
Paul has an incredible amount of insight into human interactions that he
strongly wishes to share and it is enormously disappointing when those
who are well known publicly - and also whom he considers to be highly
intelligent and mostly correct in their approach to human society - do
not welcome his critiques of their writings. I do so hope that you will
reconsider favorably.
Always sincerely,
**Kitty
The response from Wendy two days later, again top posted:
Subject: Re: High Hopes
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:19:35 -0400
From: Wendy McElroy
To: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
References: <4B9B1166.5060308@morelife.org>
Kitty (and Paul):
I am at a loss here. I made what was acknowledged by Paul to be an
unintentional disservice by identifying him with initials. Thereafter,
everything I said on the topic seemed to be a misstep....so I backed
away entirely, apologized again and deleted the post. As to a public
discussion around my mistake, the prospect doesn't appeal to me. Why
can't you just accept my apology and move on? I now know very clearly
your preferences on posts in which you are mentioned or cited, so a
similar mistake will not occur again.
As for the recent emails to me from Paul...I have not received any.
Indeed, I have had great problems sending *this* message out. I sent a
similar email yesterday and noted this morning that it was still sitting
in my "to send" box. Please read my husband's latest blog post on our
computer problems entitled "Did We Lose A Bet with God?" Brad chronicles
only the last few days of computer problems. He could have chronicled
the last few weeks.
I'm sorry if you or Paul feel ill will. I don't.
Wendy
Although my initial reaction to the above was a literal shaking of my head in exasperation (Paul did likewise), after discussing the whole situation again (and we'd already done so numerous times), I decided to try again by responding to Wendy's message:
Subject: Re: High Hopes
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:52:38 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Organization: MoreLife
To: Wendy McElroy
References: <4B9B1166.5060308@morelife.org> <4B9CD457.9070203@wendymcelroy.com>
Wendy, I have responded inline (interleaved) - which I normally do with
most all emails - to ensure that I address all points or at least make
clear which ones I am not. Please read down to my signature, which
indicates that my response is over. This reply is another attempt to get
beyond what appears to be a surreal Abbot and Costello "Who's on first?"
comedy of errors. (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml - in
case you don't remember it :)
Wendy McElroy wrote:
> Kitty (and Paul):
>
> I am at a loss here. I made what was acknowledged by Paul to be an
> unintentional disservice by identifying him with initials.
Wendy, it was *only* the identifying Paul with initials that Paul wrote
you was an "unintentional disservice". Did you not read that he *first*
wrote: "I was pleased to see your blog entry quoting most of what I sent
you in response to your "Golden Days of Non-Voting" entry"? It still
appears that you did not fully understand him on that point, nor me
either most recently. Do you not understand that a person can be
*pleased* with the result of an action in total, but still be less than
happy with a part of that action? Or did you think that Paul's first
clause (quoted here) was sarcastic or insincere?
> Thereafter,
> everything I said on the topic seemed to be a misstep....so I backed
> away entirely, apologized again and deleted the post.
And it was the deletion of that post by you that made things even worse
for us; Paul's post at his new group with a link to that blog entry then
made no sense since it went just to your blog as a whole. The retention
of that entry with the initials "PW" only was *OK*, just not the best
from his (and my) assessment, and likely from the evaluation of many
others who are thinking widest-viewed and longest-range .
> As to a public
> discussion around my mistake, the prospect doesn't appeal to me.
Again there appears to have been a communication breakdown - at least
your statement here leads me to that conclusion. The public discussion
we had hoped would take place was to be on the general principles
involved in your use of only Paul's initials - not at all any *mistake*
- which we do not consider it to be, since how could you have known
before hand that two relative strangers would have those preferences.
Later discussion hoped to take place would concern various posts you
make that include (at least) reference to essential/fundamental points
where Paul thinks (and has shown) there is philosophical weakness in
libertarian arguments. Anonymity in general and use of so-called
"intellectual property" when there is no prior contract are just two of
those major points that we are convinced *prevents* an orderly society
without government. Paul's and my writings have addressed this specific
point of anonymity, though they appear to have been mostly ignored by
those who have a high publication/readership reputation. So it is an
interest in substantive discussion on philosophical - versus common
political - that Paul hoped to engender in you by critiquing some of
your pertinent blog entries. My last paragraph in my previous email
tried to make this clear to you:
"Paul has an incredible amount of insight into human interactions that
he strongly wishes to share and it is enormously disappointing when
those who are well known publicly - and also whom he considers to be
highly intelligent and mostly correct in their approach to human society
- do not welcome his critiques of their writings. I do so hope that you
will reconsider favorably."
I still do not know, Wendy, what it is that both I and Paul have written
(or omitted) in our emails to you that has failed to make this clear or
believable to you.
> Why
> can't you just accept my apology and move on?
An apology by itself for what was the "unintentional disservice" of
using *only" initials, is all that Paul expected (and all that was
needed) - *not* removal of the blog entry. And it was a return of that
blog entry containing Paul's quotes that he asked of you, *after* you
removed that blog entry entirely, even if you chose to still use only
his initials.
An apology for using his quote was *never* wanted - simply a mention
possibly that "PW" was "Paul Wakfer" - but never to have you entirely
remove the post you had made containing his message to you. It's this
action by you that has us completely confused/stymied, and which
confusion and unhappiness we have appeared to be unable to properly
communicate to you.
Possibly you read so very many things on the Internet every day that you
skim quickly in order to get through them and have therefore missed the
essential points in Paul's and my previous emails. (We've discussed
ourselves if emails for many people are not given the same level of
concentrated thought that are awarded to articles or papers; also
whether most people use email purely for chat rather than serious
discussion. Reduced attention to content is not the case for us either
in the reading or preparation of emails. We rarely "chat" with anyone by
whatever medium.)
It was my hope that my last email would strike a chord with you, rather
than simply give up - which is how I regard "moving on" without mutual
understanding.
> I now know very clearly
> your preferences on posts in which you are mentioned or cited, so a
> similar mistake will not occur again.
But since you *removed* the post containing the quotes from Paul and
referring to him as "PW" rather than simply inserting his name (or
referring to him by name in a later post), I am now confused as to what
you would do if you received an email from either of us that you thought
contained statements worth repeating in a blog....
> As for the recent emails to me from Paul...I have not received any.
Paul did not reply to your last email reply to him, because the errors
of understanding seemed to be insurmountable to him, having already said
everything as best that he could to set things straight.
> Indeed, I have had great problems sending *this* message out. I sent a
> similar email yesterday and noted this morning that it was still sitting
> in my "to send" box. Please read my husband's latest blog post on our
> computer problems entitled "Did We Lose A Bet with God?" Brad chronicles
> only the last few days of computer problems. He could have chronicled
> the last few weeks.
Computers are terrific, but when some part of the system does not work
properly it can be a nightmare. I sympathize with you on these problems
because we have had them too. Our 6 months in rural Ontario (Harcourt
Park, west of Bancroft just south of Algonquin Provincial Park) means
dial-up Internet service; we have not chosen to spend precious money on
a satellite system but there are many times when we question whether we
ought to. Additionally, high-speed Internet has been publicized as being
"on the horizon" for the past couple of years - unfortunately the
planned provincial government backing has eliminated all incentive for
the few fledgling private companies that were starting out.
And recently we have considerable delays (some upload, but mostly
download) with the wireless broadband service we have here 12 miles
outside Casa Grande AZ where cable is not available - too few residences
so far to be profitable. At least we are not aware currently of losing
emails or failing to get them sent. Of course satellite is technically
possible here too, but our financial resources are not great by any
description so we haven't gone that route.
I'll take a look at what Brad has written - btw he does a good writing
job on many of his chosen topics. I've wondered if association with you
these many years has helped him develop his analysis and descriptive
abilities beyond computer-related subjects. I've definitely found that
to be the case for me these past 10 years in partnership with Paul :)
LATER: I read Brad's entry as well as ones since then - you two have
really had a passel of computer-related problems. I do hope that they
are over *very* soon, if not already.
LATER STILL: Good to see that you are again up and running full speed.
Our very slow speed continues, even worse than yesterday. We cannot
stream music at all today. Results of (again) calling our ISP does not
sound too promising for improvement soon and definitely not of complete
correction of the periodically poor speed.
> I'm sorry if you or Paul feel ill will.
Wendy, I don't know how to get the message across to you that we do
*not* "feel ill will" towards you. What we have felt is a high degree of
confusion and disappointment by your removing that post and then not
returning it as Paul requested in response to your message of 3/9/10.
None of this by our definition (or anyone's to my understanding of the
term) is "ill will" towards you. We wish you no ill or harm whatsoever -
quite the contrary, we hope that you (and Brad due to his connection
with you) live long, healthy and prosper. I think that you will find
worthwhile information at MoreLife.org to definitely help you do the
first two. The last is highly dependent on others, and that is where I
and Paul think a society of indivduals voluntarily interacting on the
basis of Social Meta-Needs is necessary to insure that. However, until
this new paradigm moves from the stage of being ignored to at least
being read and discussed by serious social philosophy thinkers, society
is doomed to repeat the cycles of the past with all their miseries and
loss of enormous potential.
> I don't.
That is good to read. Please "read my lips" :) - we do *not* "feel ill
will" towards you. We would just like to be sure that we and you have a
mutual understanding on, at least, the subjects of, first, your removal
of your blog entry that contained only Paul's initials, second a
philosophical discussion of the related general principles and thirdly,
your response to critiques (*not* criticisms) of your philosophically
substantive blog entries.
I also want to make it clear that Paul's intention for the group
"Libertarian Critique" was to attempt to enter into discussion on
philosophically substantive points on the blogs or in the articles of
many libertarian writers. You were only the one with whom he chose to begin.
**Kitty
No reply was ever received from Wendy, leaving me and Paul not knowing what she was thinking about the entire situation and us after receiving my email - if she even read it... However we had been surprised also when we realized around this same time that Wendy was actually a member of Libertarian Critiques Google Group (LCGG) !
Since anyone can join, Google does not notify us of new members. Because we had also not been monitoring the group much, because we were trying to get this mess with Wendy cleaned up before proceeding and also because new members are listed in alphabetical order by first name (with only the first 5 showing on the Home page), we had not immediately noticed "Wendy McElroy" at the bottom of the list. Now that we did, we were hopeful that she would still respond to critiques of some of her other writings, even if we were still in some bizarre muddle on this initial name inclusion "incident". Therefore Paul proceeded to post to LCGG on March 18 a critique of Wendy's Blog Forum agreement, very similar to those of some other libertarians. And on March 23 he started another thread that addressed Wendy's blog entry entitled, "All politicians and candidates threaten my freedom". No comments were forthcoming from Wendy although her membership indicated email delivery of LCGG posts.
On March 27 (2010) Paul posted a new message at LCGG in that first thread regarding Wendy, for the purpose of supplying a new link to that original blog entry's contents, since the old was no good - it went only to the top of her blog. I had been successful in a websearch of her site to find the print copy of that blog entry and the link to this is what Paul provided in Message #5 of that thread. And he included for emphasis the purpose of the thread and the group:
I am still hoping that she will respond to my substantive and
fundamental questions which are similar to the thoughts/writings/
actions of most libertarians and, which I again remind readers (and
especially Wendy), are not meant to attach any blame or censure to
Wendy herself.
--Paul Wakfer
The thread at LCGG now made sense again, even if the communication between us and Wendy still did not....
After several hours over several days Paul had managed to get his Wordpress blogs (part of the Self-SIP website domain) working again, reorganized and with a new blog installed, and on March 28 he made his first entry at that new blog, Libertarian Critique (LCB), to make clear its purpose. It was followed quickly that same evening with a second (a copy of the first post in the Libertopia thread at LCGG and then the third, being a copy of the first post in the third thread from LCGG, the first one related to Wendy's writings. It was while doing this last that Paul checked the (most recent) link to that original blog entry by Wendy for March 3.... Imagine our shock to find that the page was blank of any written content! Why had Wendy or Brad (her husband) done this?! I thought immediately back to her last email to me (above), "I'm sorry if you or Paul feel ill will. I don't." and was completely perplexed by this latest action. I thought maybe there's (still) some way to get through to her. Off went a short top posted reply to that last email of hers:
Subject: No "ill will"? [was: Re: High Hopes]
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:08:31 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Organization: MoreLife
To: Wendy McElroy
References: <4B9B1166.5060308@morelife.org> <4B9CD457.9070203@wendymcelroy.com>
Wendy, if you feel no "ill will", as I and Paul have not, then why have
you (or Brad) now also removed the contents of
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/print.php?news.3117 especially considering
my email in response to yours below sent 3/16/10.
This is not a rhetorical question.
**Kitty
Meanwhile Paul was determining if the webpage was still at Google? Yes, it was still in the Google cache and that is what now appears at LCGG in the same thread under a new subject name, as well as a link to it added as an addendum to the LCB entry copy of the first LCGG thread post referred to above. After making that (currently) last entry at the LCGG thread on this subject, Paul unsubscribed Wendy from the group. He concluded from this last action that she was not interested in discussing substantive issues with him in public regarding subjects upon which she had written, and had actually sought to change history by removing, at least, one of her public writings. These were very sad conclusions to draw but ones that appear reasonable from what had transpired.
The morning of March 29 saw 2 emails from Wendy in my Inbox. The first a top posted reply to the LCGG message referred to just above (a copy of her deleted blog entry):
Subject: Re: No "ill will"? [was: Re: High Hopes]
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:34:56 -0400
From: Wendy McElroy
To: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
References: <4B9B1166.5060308@morelife.org> <4B9CD457.9070203@wendymcelroy.com> <4BB027BF.7030202@morelife.org>
The post you accessed through a search was the "printable version" of
the original one which has caused so much trouble. When the original was
removed, I assumed the printable version that springboards off of it was
similarly disabled. The fact that it was not is probably due to a bug in
the E107 software which I use for the website. I have notified the E107
tech team of the bug and -- depending on their motivation and work
schedule -- I expect they will patch the glitch in the software.
I removed all trace of the post because I do not wish to participate in
or facilitate the in-depth discussion of a small and unintentional
offense I committed. There seems to be no apology you or Paul will
accept, And the fact that I committed an error seems to be the only
topic you wish to discuss with me or about me.
There is no ill will toward you. I don't even know you tho' I had been
hoping to. Especially given your proximity in Toronto, I had hoped for a
friendship and to socialize in person. But the absence of that prospect
does not constitute ill will. I am sorry to see that Paul chose to
reprint my blog post. At this point, it must be very clear to you and
him that this is 100% against my wishes and I do protest the use to
which you are putting my work. Accordingly I have unsubscribed from your
group.
This pointless unpleasantness has gone on and on for several weeks now,
and seems to be snowballing on your end. I must ask you not to bring
this matter up to me again. I will not answer future emails if you do.
Sincerely,
Wendy
Another shake of the head.... It continues to amaze me that Wendy is still fixated (and I can think of no other word) on the idea that I and Paul consider that her using "PW" in her blog entry was some sort of terrible "offense". She still appears to have no understanding of the underlying essential issue that Paul has always wanted to discuss with her related to this matter - that anything a person learns from another is the recipient's to use as s/he wishes, unless agreement to keep it private was obtained prior to the transmittal of that information. It has never been a desire or intention to have Wendy "participate in or facilitate the in-depth discussion of a small and unintentional offense [she] committed."
No matter what or how we try to communicate to her that this was/is not the case, she does not accept it.
No matter what or how Paul or I write she does not accept that the essential and general point that Paul wants to address in substantive discussion (with her and other published libertarian writers) is the idea and practice that any information transmitted or published should correctly be open for use in any manner by the recipient/reader, unless a prior agreement has taken place not to do so, even though this is currently not legally so under the copyright laws foisted on everyone by the State.
And why is Wendy referring to us living in Toronto, when I distinctly wrote of us being "in rural Ontario (Harcourt Park, west of Bancroft just south of Algonquin Provincial Park)" (which is 3 hours drive NE of Toronto), in my March 16th email? Did she skim over all of that (too)? I just don't know....
Wendy's second email to me:
Subject: Google
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:36:53 -0400
From: Wendy McElroy
To: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Hello:
I received the following note from Google
Hello wendy@wendymcelroy.com,
We have received your request to unsubscribe from libertarian-critique.
However, you do not appear to be a member of libertarian-critique, so we
have taken no further action.
If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit
the Help Center at http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US.
Thanks,
Google Groups
Would you please unsub me at your end? Thank you.
Wendy
It appears that Wendy's request to unsubscribe from the group was done after Paul had unsubscribed her himself as described above.
Since Wendy states she will not answer any further emails from me, there is no point in my (once again) trying to untangle the snarled mess that exists between her and Paul and me. The two of us had thought - like Wendy states she did - that there was much original basis for a friendship with her and Brad. Yes, they do live in Ontario, though we have not lived in Toronto for almost 5 years (made quite clear from the many photos in the personal section of MoreLife.org), and I had related to her in the March 16th email exactly where we do live. We only know that Wendy lives in "rural Ontario" (almost certainly Southern Ontario), so unless she lives somewhere in the south-west portion (which could be anywhere from 4 to 6 hours drive from our location), we would be happy to drive to her location or have her visit us (and we have a spare bedroom!). Even 6 hours (the most possible) is not too far for people who have many essential philosophical ideas in common in order to enable inperson interaction, particular if an overnight stay is possible.
I and Paul have gone round in circles with Wendy - just like that Abbott and Costello comedy routine "Who's on First?" to which I referred her in my March 16 email (above). Did she not know of it or remember it? If not, did she not use the link I provided, read it (at least 1/3 the way through) and see the resemblance to what had been taking place in our correspondence?
As I write this on the afternoon of March 29, I stop and scratch my head, wondering if I (and Paul) have been writing some dialect of English that Wendy does not fully comprehend.... Or is it that she has been skimming over the sentences in our emails (and even Paul's LCGG posts) and missing essential points while continuing to hold onto only first or last impressions/conclusions??....
So my collection (in chronological order) of the events in this most snarled of relationships - one that started out so very well between two people with good intentions and (supposedly) many essential characteristics in common - is to make everything public for the assessment of others. I (and Paul) welcome critiques of the communicative writings above for the purpose of helping us avoid any repeat of this with someone else. Maybe someone else can succeed in unsnarling this confusion between us and Wendy - truly unsnarl and not just simply suggest that we "move on", leaving the knot of misunderstanding of communication still there but ignored.
It would be great if some months from now, I, Paul, Wendy and Brad could be sitting down with tea (or beer for W & B who like it) and laughing about this entire episode of "talking past each other". It is because of this (still) possibility that I have spent several hours just putting these communications and events together, and many more are needed before this lengthy compiling can be uploaded to MoreLife.org. Call me an optimist, but I still have hopes, even if not nearly as high as when I sent the email to Wendy on March 12 (above).
 |
 |