Editor’s Note: I re-post here an outtake from a comment by John Powell, who has been with us for many years at The Truth Barrier, and certainly knows my “armor” and rough sides, which we always manage to overcome. The angry comments (names un-named) have affected my energy and will, to continue the website, and on one occasion earlier this winter, I pulled it, thinking that was the only option I had, against daily attacks. This is a “labor of love,” and not a for profit website. I don’t think arguments are “attacks,” or factual corrections. Attacks makes themselves felt as attacks; They sting and hurt, as they are intended to.
In my life going forward, all I know is, I no longer want to “sign up” for being abused and I never want to be in such a defensive position that I strike out at another person disrespectfully either. Therefore I have said to all haters of myself and my writings: I accept your feelings, but not round after round after round. If I “block” such persons, I stand accused of a terrible censoriousness, as if I am trying to create or project perfect appreciation for all I state. Not so. Anybody who is made miserable here, should consider not reading this site anymore. Surely that’s reasonable.
I am a PERSON. I have tried to repair the damage done by whatever it was I contributed to this angry knot, but at a certain point I can’t continue to explain and apologize, and yes, it is strictly against the rule to publish private correspondences without both parties’ permission.
Here’s part of what John Powell wrote. I appreciate it and I publish it in hopes we can re-boot, start over, and stop all the fighting, before the website is brought down by ill-will.
I encourage you to embark on the quest for understanding THE FACT that peaceful, calm, well-reasoned philosophical dialectic between two or more people who have differing beliefs and perspectives IS NOT the same as throwing grossly-insensitive, taunting, condescending, malicious hand grenades of personalized ridicule and mockery.
6.) Your persistent and unsuccessful prodding of Ms. Farber, with sometimes snide and snotty pomposity, to get her to publish here the contents of private correspondence, brings to mind something she stated during one of her recent more-than-gracious attempts at accommodating what characterize as a case for receiving justice.
During that recent attempt at accommodation, she stated as her sworn and sacred duty to her conscience, that she would never violate her personal standard of maintaining the confidentiality of her private correspondence.
You continue prodding her, with sometimes snide and snotty pomposity, to compel and/or coerce her into submitting to something to which she has clearly answered “No”.
I encourage you to embark on the quest for understanding THE FACT that “No” means “No”.