The Observation Deck

Tim,
I still don't accept your explanation. Even if it was placed after another persons name it was totally unfair. It sounds to me like you were just trying to justify why you were not selected.
Jerry Koenigsmark

Jerry Koenigsmark wrote:Tim,
I still don't accept your explanation. Even if it was placed after another persons name it was totally unfair. It sounds to me like you were just trying to justify why you were not selected.
Jerry Koenigsmark

Fine Mr. Koenigsmark, you don't have to accept my explanation, I can live with that. I know that I wrote was not intended to be malicious or offensive to anyone. If you take that way, I am sorry.

Tim Carroll

When levels of disappointment, indignation and negativity rise on the LO Deck, especially around that third rail of local political actions, intentions and relations, I question, in light of the mission, the value and effect these disembodied communications have on community good will.

Let us review once again, “The mission of the Lakewood Observer is to attract, articulate, and amplify civic intelligence and community good will in the city of Lakewood and beyond.â€Â￾

I won’t presume to tell anyone how to feel about what anybody says or does. However, I don’t feel especially good about the interpersonal effects of the LO project, when individual and network are so seamlessly conflated as when Mr. O’Bryan remarks to Mr. Carroll:

“However while I do not believe your disappointment lies with me, but the LO network which you are part of, I will accept full responsibility for that or anything with the LO Project.â€Â￾

I, too, am part of the LO network. From time to time, I contribute words to this medium so productive of animosity, disappointment and misunderstanding.

I must strongly resist Mr. O’Bryan’s Whitmanic embrace of the Lakewood multitude, his conflated effort to contain us in Mr. Carroll’s disappointment in him.

Deliberate over whether or not remarks or actions lacked truth or virtue; but speak only for yourself.

Measure only yourself in the respect you bring to the words another supplies for unpacking in psycho-poetic drama of the LO Deck.

Now, I read and enjoy Tim Carroll’s blog – “Carroll's Place - Give opinions on whatever I feel like, mostly local politics.â€Â￾

See: http://carrollforlakewood.blogspot.com/

I don’t believe Mr. Carroll intended any particular insult to Ms. Koenigsmark in his statement. Having read his blog consistently, I take him at his word. Although local politics demands thick skin and sometimes goes against the convivial grain of relationships, I would not presume to convince Mr. Koeningmark to make nothing of it. That’s his call.

The LO Deck is a civic feedback mechanism that, for all the agonies and games of gotcha, can help us adjust our beliefs, communications, ideas, politics, personalities and positions.

When these friction points flare, especially among people with whom I share a neighborly bond of affection, I am inclined to remain silent.

However, after I read Mr. Carroll’s blog entry – “Wrong Directionâ€Â￾ – concerning this flare-up, I felt compelled to respond. I respond here, simply because as a matter of civics, personal policy and time management this is the only blog to which I am committed.

Mr. Carroll notes in his post:

“I certainly wished they had made their comments on this site, since this is where it all began. Instead they went on the Observation Deck, suffice it to say I feel that I have answered the call there and won't be making anymore comments there, but I will bring them back to this site.â€Â￾

I am responding here, because I respect Mr. Carroll (as I do Mr. and Mrs. Koenigsmark) and wish for him to feel his engagement with the LO Deck can generate a meaningful sense that he can flourish as a neighbor while communicating in this community. At the same time, I am raising for all of us larger questions about rules of engagement, modes of communication and interpersonal squabbles that drive people to communicate off the LO grid.

In reading Owen Flanigan’s The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World, I noticed that he uses the term “The Psycho-Poetics of Experienceâ€Â￾ in a way that connects with my sense of living in the time of the LO project and contributing to its community drama.

He writes: “Living is a psycho-poetic performance, a drama that is our own, but that is made possible by our individual intersection, and that of our fellow performers, with the relevant Space of Meaningâ€Â￾ (14).

He notes further: ‘Psycho-poetics refers to creative ways persons attempt to make meaning and sense of things and thereby to live well. A person who lives well, in a way that makes sense and is meaningful, is what the Greeks called ‘eudaimon’ – literally, “happily blessed.â€Â￾ Eudaimonia is flourishingâ€Â￾ (16).

May we all find ‘eudaimon’ in our communications and experience of community wherever that might be.

Kenneth Warren

"At the same time, I am raising for all of us larger questions about rules of engagement, modes of communication and interpersonal squabbles that drive people to communicate off the LO grid. "

Mr. Warren,
With all due respect, I didn't find this thread to be particularly breaking any rules of etiquette. I echoed Ruth's husband, after he posted the blog statement on the deck, inquiring as to what the comment meant. As a libra (sorry) I had to defend the honor of someone I know to be a true hero, if not a politician, in Lakewood. I think Sharon echoed my sentiments and although Ruth's husband did not accept the answer that came from Tim, I don't think he felt that it was really answered.

The comment made in the blog that was open to the public was clearly a comment about the council not being able to get along with Ruth. That was offensive to those of us that know her. But I certainly don't think that makes us wrong because Tim chooses to not post here anymore. Most of us have chosen not to post here for periods of time because of negativity. In this case, the negativity was from Tim, whom I don't know but who chose to make his comments public.

Justine:

We all supply contexts and read tones differently.

I registered Mr. Carroll's comment as reflecting the decision-making, experiential and political limitations of the council not any defects pertaining to Ruth.

My issue was with the way in which Jim spun Mr. Carroll's expression of disappointment in him into disappointment with the LO network.

I hope that you as a Libran will appreciate to a small degree my attempt to bring a little balance to Mr. Carroll's side of the argument.

Kenneth Warren

Mr. Carroll made a point to direct readers to his blog. He was disappointed when there was a reaction about what he posted in his blog. He would have readers believe that an inexact use of the language, rather than some other meaning, was upsetting his readers.

After directing Deck readers to his blog, Deck readers are taken to task for taking Mr. Carroll to task on the Deck. Better he should have been taken to task on his blog.

Rather than complain about Deck posts and posters here, Mr. Carroll complains on his blog about posts made on the Deck.

There's something quite bizarre about the whole episode.

dl meckes wrote:There's something quite bizarre about the whole episode.

Not that odd, DL.

According to Google, the average blog in America gets 1.5 hits a day.

FWIW


.

Kenneth Warren wrote:Justine:

We all supply contexts and read tones differently.

I registered Mr. Carroll's comment as reflecting the decision-making, experiential and political limitations of the council not any defects pertaining to Ruth.

My issue was with the way in which Jim spun Mr. Carroll's expression of disappointment in him into disappointment with the LO network.

I hope that you as a Libran will appreciate to a small degree my attempt to bring a little balance to Mr. Carroll's side of the argument.

Kenneth Warren

Kenneth Warren

We both know the multitude of issues here. One the the limitations and forums, and we have both spoken on the problem with blogs. So here it compounds, all around the dance of a tick on the back of the lion.

I could go down the reasons for my answer, outrage, time of day, how it was presented to me, with the reactionary habits of the Irish Kabuki Street Warrior, and the Human Tribes that revolve around, coffee, beer, street rods, and friendship. But we can set that aside for now.

I know Tim Carroll, I have had many very pleasant conversations with him. I like Tim Carroll, and was actually surprised by all of this, and disappointed.

And yes, fellow advisers have told me that Tim was referring to working together in a political sense. Yeah OK, sure. It still does not apply to the name it was attached to. There in lies one small part of the problem.

I understand every side of this argument, I actually like all participants.

Tim is capable of so much better. Than the post and the words that have flowed from his keyboard since.

As for the blog, it underlines everything laid out in the seminal paper, "Jihad Against The Other Guy" a study of how ineffective blogs are against the open discussion of civic discourse, ownership and the word jazz that follows.

Ken as you have stepped in to provide balance, that I appreciate, I also stepped in to provide balance, originally.



FWIW

Kenneth Warren wrote:Justine:

We all supply contexts and read tones differently.

I registered Mr. Carroll's comment as reflecting the decision-making, experiential and political limitations of the council not any defects pertaining to Ruth.

My issue was with the way in which Jim spun Mr. Carroll's expression of disappointment in him into disappointment with the LO network.

I hope that you as a Libran will appreciate to a small degree my attempt to bring a little balance to Mr. Carroll's side of the argument.

Kenneth Warren

Ken,
Yes we do all read tones differently. I agree and appreciate your attempt to bring balance, however, I didn't agree that this thread in particular had negative or personal attacks on a person, except the comment in question. It just seemed that people not agreeing with Tim were being accused of chasing him off this deck, when in fact, we were just truly asking for an explanation of the comment made about Ruthie. There really wasn't one given.

When you have a public blog, and you choose to make comments, personal or otherwise about other individuals, you have to expect some differing opinions. If you didn't, you should keep a private journal with a lock.

The disagreement between Jim and Tim seems to have to do with another issue of course, which has nothing to do with the issue of Tim's comment. But as we know, most threads get taken off topic.

While I do look at both sides of things, I also realize that the person angrily leaving the deck is often the one that initially made offensive remarks. If you don't can't stand the heat, don't post publicly.

Whle it could be understood that Tim Carroll didn't mean to insult Ruth.
He did.

Instead of apologizing he is saying that we read his statement wrong.

Not true. The comment he made about being able to work with counsel was directly after his statement about Ruth. After that statement he made his paragraph break.

It does not have to be this big a deal.

An apology is called for.

TIM CARROLL wrote:Fine Mr. Koenigsmark, you don't have to accept my explanation, I can live with that. I know that I wrote was not intended to be malicious or offensive to anyone. If you take that way, I am sorry.

Tim Carroll

Sharon,

Is this not enough? I really don't understand people that get into the lime light and complain it is too hot, people need to get tougher skin. People say things that can be mean, I don't think Tim meant it that way, but even if he did, people say tough things.

Look at the negative things people say about every candidate in every race local or national. This interview was for a position that is normally given to someone who goes through the heat of an election. People should think long and hard before applying. The newspapers/blogs/LO could have been a lot rougher on all of the candidates.

I really can't believe this is still going on. Don't we have more important things to discuss??

His disqualifier statement would be "if you take it that way".

He is disclaiming responsibility.

That's why it's going on Ryan.

If I say something that I don't intend to be mean and someone takes it that way I cannot say, I didn't mean for it to be taken that way, but if you took it as mean I am sorry??

Wow, things are becoming more clear on why people post what they do here.

I am going to start hanging out on the new observer and see if it is more rational there.

Ryan, my mother used to say, "If you were really sorry, you'd be crying."

She meant that I didn't sound like I was sincerely apologizing.

And I think that's why this issue refuses to die.

I am sure Ruth is a very nice person, but she may not want to ever actually run for a political position.

Unfortunately this comes with the territory.

If we demand "crying apologies" for everything that could be taken wrong in politics we would be waiting on a lot of people for a very long time...

I do think this post is good because it makes people aware that when you apply for a political position it opens you up to personal/political/professional criticism.

I have a lot of respect for anyone willing to put their name on the ballot. It is fun and exciting but also very difficult if you are not prepared for the heat.