The Rise of the Naifs: The Attack, Phase Two, Begins

[Ed Jewett]

...I would ask that you elaborate ... our best, deep politics-informed judgment.

Thanks, Charles, for your well-spoken and prompt reply. I will respond as follows:

**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndKc_tgGvZ0
Listen now tolerably-full sound; watch in full-screen HD later.

***

1) A simpler statement is not possible under the circumstances; I thought, knowing full well of my own propensity for elongation of text, I had sharpened that more precisely than it appeared. But that is what dialogue is for....

2) You asked for my elaboration with regard my having been approached... I decline to do so for the same reason you decline to disclose back-channel communications among DPF leaders. [To do so would be to possibly betray a confidence when there was no clear incentive or reason for betraying it.] But I also have a propensity for communicating with people indirectly and prior experience in similar but not the same kinds of discussion board intrigue.

3) "I am unaware of any thread "termination" to which you may be referring. Please elaborate. To which "suggestion" do you refer?"

Well, my bad choice of word, as the open thread at that time certainly was not terminated in any sense. My own assumption is that I see you jumping into a new thread started by you and directly linking and referencing that thread whose last posts were about my suggestion -- which, having made it here in at least two other posts, I think has tremendous -- albeit difficult to produce -- merit as a thinking tool. [It, especially if compiled openly and transparently,would out a lot of information and people in a hurry.] That, coupled with the open processes and statements inside US government and jurisprudence, as well as having been the target personally here and elsewhere, suggested I'd best clarify things. Sometimes we who seek something of honor or justice have our own paranoia skip to a Brubeckian rhythm.

4) "Are you asking us to bless you, or to clear you of some sort of charge?"

In a word, yes. But there's a hell of a lot of distinction that has to be made.

I don't need anyone's blessing -- I have been blessed in so many ways it is hard to keep track of them all -- and "charge" is far too strong a word. "Suspicion" might not be, especially given my stated opinions and POV's here, at other sites, in blogs (dead, new, or proposed). But your further statements made it more clear.

5)

A) "the inference you would have us draw that somehow you are being targeted for unfair treatment at DPF"

If you drop the personalization that you think I inserted, as reflected in your use of the word "you", then you have it precisely. Is someone here is being targeted or is under suspicion? As long as it's not me, I'll go back to my little tome of Zen instructions for the monastery's cook.

B) "I speak for myself and my partners when I tell you that your contributions to DPF are of immense value to our shared goals. You are a prized member of this forum."

That one will get framed and hung along side the plaques for rookie and MVP awards as an umpire, or the one from the organization that employed me that says "thanks for putting us on the map".

That was not what I asked for, so I appreciate it deeply. It suggests I may continue doing something more of what I am doing. It's almost right out of "A Passion for Excellence" or that TV show where the CEO goes undercover.


6) "the right to express dissatisfaction with the way DPF does business"

No dissatisfaction to express except perhaps that I see a troubling slippage of your own [CD's] recent expressions to something that is more fitting for a lower road than the one you usually attain and urge others to do so. But if there is rough sailing that is agitating your rudder, I'll shift my weight.

7) "a Columbo-style investigation of the attacks"

Not interested, so long as I am not the focus. That's among the reasons I demurred on the offer of collaboration and why I demur on talking about it. That's not narcissistic; that's simply an overactive scanning system brought to a higher pitch because of others' surveillance. [This gets to be Freudian or Jungian or something.]

8) "you need to enhance your understanding of how hostile operations such as those targeted against DPF are designed and executed"

I'd be very interested in learning about the topic in a way, time and manner best chosen by the DPF leadership.

9) "Events are transpiring behind the scenes -- events which, for many valid reasons, owners of DPF must keep to themselves."

I lack sufficient clearance for that knowledge.

And there is a whole kaleidoscope of events going down.

10) "DPF owners reserve the right to act in accordance with the dictates of our best, deep politics-informed judgment."

I don't dispute that and stipulate to it. Just consider me one of the many rotating blades that likes to see that best judgment kept regularly sharpened.

I have the utmost respect for DPF leadership, especially you and that fair sheila down in Oz way and the now-retired David Guyatt. His membership still serves as a reminder (or ought to) of keeping to the high road. I lift my cup...

****

So, in summary, CD, as my life turns in already-stated directions, my visits here will be less frequent. There are certain interests for which I act as a gatherer, but these can be more automated in the future.

And since, by existential issues, my presence here will be less frequent or different, I wanted to insure that I was practicing "safe camping" and not leaving behind either trash or embers.