from the candidate

[Guest guest]

Well, I'm not spinning. I'm addressing what you brought up. And I don't know

about other readers, but in my opinion you're attacking me through . My

name is mentioned all through this - if you want that dialogue, bring it on, but

have the guts to go to me.

I am not shocked when people walk through the door, and I'm not surprised you

wrote the kind of post you did. I agree with 's characterization that

what you wrote was nitpicking. But I don't mind. That's fine with me. The

general tenet of my statement was one of inclusion - Protestants, Catholics,

Jews, atheists, agnostics, African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians (And someone

had the gall to call me on not including the group with one my goddaughters

being from Korea.) - we are humanity and we must find a way to accept and relate

to others. I addressed your concerns about tax write-offs and comped rooms in

my anwer to you yesterday. I explained that I have no problem with write-offs

except when that is the main focal point and not the service to LPA. Though you

accused me of flaunting my money, I pointed out that I was merely offering to

pay for my room and offer whatever comped room I had to someone less well-off.

Yet in my opinion you were spinning this to attack me.

I did choose this forum to display myself - to put my ideas forward. My

opponent can choose to join me in the discussion or pass on it. But I don't see

anything wrong in someone questioning why the other candidate chooses to remain

silent. And if you call this judgmental - that's your spin. As I said

yesterday, I'm enjoying the irony.

And here's a surprise for you, I agree with your paragraph on mentoring. This

would be very beneficial to the young members.

Davey Lamb

Picky picky Re: Re: my campaign statement

> Why are you folks all nit-picking? Seems to be all National officers

and past LPA Candidates. "

When you open the door by making statements like " I'm ready for the

dialogue. Davey Lamb " , then don't be shocked when people walk through

it. What you call 'nit-picking' for some of us is the requested

'dialogue'.

> While I believe Davey did put himself out there for scrutiny, the

> question you should be asking is : WHERE IS HIS OPPONENT?

He chose this forum to display himself, as far as I know nowhere does

it say that any candidate 'must' campaign on this or any other

discussion list.

> Attacking Davey for leaving out one segment , may be well

intended, but I recall you being one of the staunchest members and

most vocal against The Laurie Benz Article in LPA today.>

> For Folks that don't recall that Laurie is a long time member that

is openly gay.>

> So obviously , has issues with Davey's overall liberal and

worldy views.<

Gotta love spin doctors.

Interesting how makes 1 point about an LPA growing population and

you have to interject, for arguement's (and spin's) sake an issue

that wasn't an 'issue'. I've reread 's post and I can't see where

she stated any opposition to anyone's sexual preferences or Lamb's

liberal choices.

> This is just a lynch mob trying to keep LPA isolated from a new

fresh perspective. think about the critics. Aren't we all a bit tired

of them?<

Spins like a 33rpm. For those too young to remember, I'm sure it's in

the history books.

> I know you're all tired of me too. That's why I'm not a candidate.<

So you dropped out?

> LPA needs new Blood, not someone that's run for every office under

the sun.<

LPA needs an established program where it mentors young leaders (new

blood) and prepares them to take positions which will advance the

mission of the Organization. Hopefully districts are encouraging

younger members to participate in leadership positions in preparation

for national offices.

===

[Guest guest]

>Well, I'm not spinning.<

Interesting. I didn't realize if I interpreted one post as a spin, it

was automatically a reflection on you. Perhaps it's the 'birds of a

feather' thing and I wasn't aware that you both sang the same song.

" And I don't know about other readers, but in my opinion you're

attacking me through . "

I don't know about other readers either, but again I find it

interesting that my 'dialogue' which you invited, is interpreted by

you as an 'attack'. I can see that this isn't quite the platform of

inclusiveness and openness that you're marketing. I guess we'll have

to guess at who is 'included' and who is not. But, we all now know

that I am not included.

>My name is mentioned all through this - if you want that dialogue,

bring it on, but have the guts to go to me.<

I dialogue with you (as I am now) and I don't consider a trip to the

'guts' gym first, just a mocha java to keep me going before dinner.

But, you (and others, sorry Alyce, but I wasn't the one who opened up

this LPA subject in what is not an LPA discussion board, evidently

this platform wasn't getting enough attention on the LPA discussion

site so it needed to pack up and travel) seem to take on a

confrontational tone immediately when the post is not from someone who

is not patting you on the back and saying " good job, old boy " .

So there is 'dialogue' and there is dialogue.

>I agree with 's characterization that what you wrote was

nitpicking.<

Yes, well I find that some characterize anything but their opinion to

be nit-picking. I saw that when the LPA board found that no rules

would be bent in order to make mid-stream changes in the election

process it was also nit-picking. And I'm finding that if I don't pat

you on the back, then I'm nit-picking. I didn't realize that in a

country with so much freedom some could dialogue and some could only

nit-pick.

>The general tenet of my statement was one of inclusion - Protestants,

Catholics, Jews, atheists, agnostics, African-Americans, Hispanics and

Asians (And someone had the gall to call me on not including the group

with one my goddaughters being from Korea.) - we are humanity and we

must find a way to accept and relate to others.<

It is quite fascinating to watch you stand on your candidacy platform

calling for dialogue and immediately attack a member (via your ghost

writer) for broadening your list of 'inclusion' to acknowledge an ever

growing population that you missed.

I fear that as (a potential) LPA president what you state in fact is

not true, and you will not be open to dialogue or inclusion. As of now

I find that all of our comments (if not a pat on the back or if not

fully in agreement) will be perceived as attacks if you were to gain

office. I don't see an open arms approach, but I feel more like some

of us will receive a slammed door in our face.

" I explained that I have no problem with write-offs except when that

is the main focal point and not the service to LPA. "

And why can't you (and Soares) just accept that this is people's

personal business and not that of any other and especially not that of

any LPA potential official? There is very little benefit to serving

LPA, if a tax write-off is one of them, then it's between the

individual and the IRS.

>Though you accused me of flaunting my money, I pointed out that I was

merely offering to pay for my room and offer whatever comped room I

had to someone less well-off. Yet in my opinion you were spinning

this to attack me.<

And my follow up was not directed at your pending generosity, but at

the scary thought that the guest list for these 'comp' rooms will be

scrutinized and judged. I've always felt uncomfortable with the " you

can, but only if you follow 'my' rules " type of (potential)

leadership, LPA doesn't have guidelines that have been violated.

But, that's my dialogue and not a personal attack on your financial

resources and how you provide. More power to you if you can serve

without financial restrictions and more power to those who have enough

income as to fund another member's stay, perhaps I am of the school

that thinks that generosity is best served on a plate with a side of

humble.

> And here's a surprise for you, I agree with your paragraph on

mentoring. This would be very beneficial to the young members.

I'm not surprised at all that you agree. Overall I have found you to

be an intelligent in many areas, just not an individual who I agree

with for the most part. I do find it a shame that if you were to be

elected I will find myself excluded because I don't follow your rules

for 'dialogue'.

But, then on the upside; I won't feel a need to attend membership

meetings at LPA conferences for a while, especially the early morning

ones. It is true there is sunshine behind some clouds

Happy trails,