Angry Neighbor Email EXTRA! Defective Rhetoric and Facts Edition

I hadn’t planned on a new installment in the Angry Neighbor Saga this soon, but this comment posted by Mary Arnett convinced me a quick update was warranted.

In it, she requested:

Please remove these postings about [another angry neighbor]. You can leave mine up because I have a pretty thick skin and I have been around the block too many times to know that people like you, Chip, are not worth my trouble to worry about. I would not take back a word that I said in any of those posts.

At this time, I have no plans to remove any past posts.

I’ll tell you why. A good place to start is my basic principles for this series.

  • The goal of these posts is not to harass or humiliate, but rather to hold people accountable for actions that have persisted away from public scrutiny.
  • I will focus on public actions, and avoid discussion of personal issues or peccadilloes.
  • When I characterize or report the actions of a person, I will try to provide supporting documentation so its veracity can be ascertained, and endeavor to ensure my posts are accurate.
  • I will try to respect privacy, will sometimes obfuscate the identify of people peripherally involved, and try to avoid exposing communications made in confidence.

These principles give me no reason to remove the referenced posts. The messages indicated are not private records, and they accurately document the abusive behavior in question.

The fact that somebody acted like a jerk when they thought when nobody was watching, and now is upset that people know they acted this way is not a reason to remove the documents — it’s the whole purpose of these posts.

Which brings me to another important point. I’m trying to post only that which I can document, which means there isn’t much reason to engage in back-and-forth. Obviously, I think the allegations in the the angry neighbor emails are false. But what’s the sense in refutations? A denial wouldn’t be worth the oxygen molecules it’s written on.

But Mary’s comment does provide keen insight into her process for fabricating facts. She refers to a recent blog post I made, characterizing it as:

Look at your post on the left hand sidebar – the one that announces what a great website we were going to see when the switch was flipped.

Here is what I actually wrote:

I attended one of the public test drive sessions earlier this month. I was very impressed with the platform design and the opportunity for new capabilities. I saw, however, several navigation glitches and needs for content … which is not unexpected at this stage of the project. I’m anticipating some happy surprises come Monday, but I’m also anticipating that there will be a way to go before we’re all satisfied.

As you can see, what I actually said is exactly the opposite of what she claimed I said. I hope you find this little example illustrative of her defective rhetoric and facts.

3 thoughts on “Angry Neighbor Email EXTRA! Defective Rhetoric and Facts Edition

  1. I’m appalled. Thank you for posting such clear and specific examples of how information is being distorted in our neighborhood. I’m concerned about what else may be going on. Why is this even happening? It’s ugly.

  2. This blog is an excellent piece of work, thank you, Chip. You’re letting the guilty parties speak for themselves, and sunshine is an excellent disinfectant. Give ’em plenty of rope– they’ll hang themselves.

  3. Good for you, Chip. We cannot let her continue to get away with this stuff. She needs to be exposed. I’m so sorry the neighborhood is being terrorized by this woman.