Sometimes you just have to sit back and slide on the ice . . .
While most comments reflected a range of sentiments that recognized the key issues I was attempting to raise in relation to the myths behind a level playing field in terms of pursuing government contracts, there were as is sometimes the case extreme responses such as on from the UK which accused me of being a communist. I can assure you dear reader that the only thing red on or about me is my eyes as a result of being allergic to our 5 cats – the fact that we have 5 cats is a story for another day.
excerpt from today’s Procurement Insights Blog Post
As I posted earlier today in my Facebook profile occasionally, but not often, I have been called everything from being a hired gun for Fox News, to what amounted to a “you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny” rant (which again I admit that this last statement might be a little bit true – I will let you decide which one of these applies most). However, yesterday was the first time that someone implied that my position on a particular topic reflected similar values to those of a failed communist country.
Perhaps not satisfied that his words did not produce the desired effect, or maybe response would be more applicable in this instance, my detractor felt compelled to comment on today’s post as well.
Figuring that the fun should not be limited to my eyes alone, here is my thoughtful exchange with someone from whom I suspect I will not be receiving a Christmas card this holiday season. Note: I did not edit a single word in the gentleman’s response.
Gentleman • I read procurement insights and I was appauled to read, “there were as is sometimes the case extreme responses such as on from the UK which accused me of being a communist”.
As I think I am the only person to comment on your discussion yesterday and I did not call you a communist, I request a formal apology.
Jon W. Hansen • I beg to differ as you equated the points raised in my article with (and I quote) “why past communist countries failed, because its contracts were not based on fair trading, but were issued though bribes and scams and not the best option available.”Perhaps I would have served your intended words better by focusing my attention on your inference that my position was tantamount to an endorsement of “bribes and scams.”
Gentleman • Pseudo intellectuals do make me laugh. I suggest you are a very insecure individual and really do need help. I shall not bother to entertain any of your rantings in future.
Jon W. Hansen • Rhett, Rhett . . . whatever shall I do? Wherever shall I go?
I of course love a good debate in which differing points of view are well research and presented. This is the grist for a great conversation through which meaningful progress on an issue can be made. But what else can you say to someone who takes a shot, without actually reading the material mind you, and then proceeds to ignore everything you say in a “what is your favorite color . . . answer, I do like meatballs with my spaghetti” kind of exchange?
This being said, I have noticed a pattern with those who appear to practice the shoot first, ask questions later approach to conversations. When faced with facts, they all tend to suggest that your IQ is somehow wanting – maybe this is why 3 of the happiest years of my life were spent in grade 5 – while retreating under a “it’s my ball and if I can’t pitch then I am going home” tantrum.
In short, I don’t mind being called an idiot, just as long as you base it on something that would at least come close to supporting your position.
Oh well, what’s the old saying . . . ladies and gentleman, take my advice, pull down your pants and, slide on the ice!