They are focussed. They deal with conflicting evidence, by selective perception, compartmentalising, rationalising, by attacking its credibility, or by demonising the messengers.
I'm sorry, Jewel, but there's a lot of that going around. The fact that you would attribute that solely to them is evidence of selective perception, IMO. I think that CH and X have in common that they are distant, analytical, outspoken, and indifferent to some things that others value. That makes them less than endearing to the schmaltzy crowd, and visa versa. So even without any infractions, they would tend to be less popular. Throw in some infractions, and they're toast.
Whether any of the counter claims are true or not (ie. poet is manipulative, jla is harsh, Laz and others are loyal to one another as a group or gang or whatever, etc etc),
You mentioned earlier dealing with one piece at a time. I had responded to E's post about multiple, concurrent elements. I really, really think that it's essential to look at the totality of this matter to have any understanding of it. Poet IS manipulative; JLA IS harsh; X DID pull the rug out from under the plan; CH DID wrong Poet, etc. It's all part of the stew. The single-minded focus on squashing CH did not accomplish anything.
I disagree that the call for everyone to come clean on sins of the past is serious or anything but a smokescreen being promoted to disorient and further enable the issue.
I disagree. As I posted yesterday, I think that is primarily a function of the different models of conflict resolution in use. I'm certainly not putting up a smokescreen. I'd like to see closure on this. |
