In March of this year he posted on his board about "a so called professional's blog". Harvey went on to write that "he has pretty much copied what I have written about why we can't price by the square foot floor area!" Harvey proceeded to call the author "a low life crumb" for using the work of someone else "for their betterment, trying to make others think that they are creative!"
I was made aware of the post by a friend who questioned if the post referred to me. I suspected it did and contacted Harvey. He refused to deny that the post referred to me. He did however, remove his post. I then wrote an open letter that I shared with a small number of people, including Harvey.
Harveyresponded with several emails requesting that I retract the open letter. He ended one email by writing: “I can state with assurance that this would be your BEST chance at damage control.” I did not retract the letter, and heard nothing further from Harvey.
In August he joined a particular board and began to take pot shots at me. Several friends emailed asking why he was doing this. I was not certain, but suspected a lingering animosity. Desiring to avoid open warfare on the board, I wrote a post implicitly addressed to Harvey. He eventually responded. A few excerpts are included below, along with my comments:
Harvey: Just because you decide that somebody (me perhaps) has taken something out of context to somehow disprove your credibility doesn't make it so and I'll tell you that it ain't so.
I clearly established the context in which I was writing. I was referring to the markup of materials and its impact on the price. I gave numerical examples in addition to my textual explanation. This was the context that I established as the basis for my comments. To address my comments while ignoring that context is fallacious, and that is precisely what you did. I never denied that material costs could fluctuate.
Harvey: YOU are being consumed by your own philosophical BS. I find Ayn Rand to be somewhat of a mental case, personally and judging by your behavior and your secret squirrel topics, I probably ain't far off with my assessment.
Now we are getting closer to the real heart of the matter and the apparent source of your animosity and anger. You bring up Ayn Rand, which I had not done. Why do so when she was irrelevant to the topic? In doing so, you are resorting to an ad hominem attack—you are trying to refute my argument by reference to someone I admire. And then you engage in petty slurs against her in a very juvenile attempt to make a point. You might as well say that my mother wears army boots.
These comments are rather revealing, in that you make no attempt to address anything substantive. Phrases such as “philosophical BS”, “mental case”, and “secret squirrel topics” are simply childish. You make no attempt to provide evidence to support your claims. You just lash out in anger, as if that will provide a compelling argument.
This is in sharp contrast to my posts. When someone questions my position, I respond with facts and numbers. I explain why I reached my conclusion. I certainly do not respond with “I’ve seen it for years” or "you are a mental case" or "may family has been doing this for 50 years".
What is particularly interesting in the above is that you jump to conclusions about my mental state while simultaneously launching into an irrational and unintelligible rant. You question my behavior while simultaneously raising irrelevant issues. You suggest that I might have some issues while you demonstrate that you actually do have issues.
I will not speculate as to your motivation. But I have enough experience with irrational thugs to know the general ideas that underlie your type.
I’ve said before that you are nothing more than a bully. Like a little child who stomps his feet and holds his breath when he doesn’t get his way, you resort to personal insults and threats. Unable to provide a logical argument, you resort to the only tactics available to brutes. This has been your pattern for years, and not just with me.
The underlying premise to such actions is that reality is malleable to your whims. If you hold your breath long enough, or shout enough threats, others will appease you. That may work with some people, but it won’t work with me.
You exhibit all of the symptoms of a second-hander—a person whose self-worth is dictated by the opinions others have of him. A second-hander reacts to disapproval in one of two ways—he lashes out or he appeases. He typically oscillates between the two, depending on the circumstances and his emotional state at the time.
This has been your pattern for years. For example, you threatened to beat up Richard Kaller, and then quickly claimed that you didn’t mean it. One day you’d be his biggest defender, and the next a brutal enemy. You berated Paul Burns, and then gave him a forum on your board. You see-saw between outright hostility and transparent timidity.
You likely regard this as “philosophical BS”. Petty minds often do. But what you think is of little concern to me.
These comments are rather revealing, in that you make no attempt to address anything substantive. Phrases such as “philosophical BS”, “mental case”, and “secret squirrel topics” are simply childish. You make no attempt to provide evidence to support your claims. You just lash out in anger, as if that will provide a compelling argument.
This is in sharp contrast to my posts. When someone questions my position, I respond with facts and numbers. I explain why I reached my conclusion. I certainly do not respond with “I’ve seen it for years” or "you are a mental case" or "may family has been doing this for 50 years".
What is particularly interesting in the above is that you jump to conclusions about my mental state while simultaneously launching into an irrational and unintelligible rant. You question my behavior while simultaneously raising irrelevant issues. You suggest that I might have some issues while you demonstrate that you actually do have issues.
I will not speculate as to your motivation. But I have enough experience with irrational thugs to know the general ideas that underlie your type.
I’ve said before that you are nothing more than a bully. Like a little child who stomps his feet and holds his breath when he doesn’t get his way, you resort to personal insults and threats. Unable to provide a logical argument, you resort to the only tactics available to brutes. This has been your pattern for years, and not just with me.
The underlying premise to such actions is that reality is malleable to your whims. If you hold your breath long enough, or shout enough threats, others will appease you. That may work with some people, but it won’t work with me.
You exhibit all of the symptoms of a second-hander—a person whose self-worth is dictated by the opinions others have of him. A second-hander reacts to disapproval in one of two ways—he lashes out or he appeases. He typically oscillates between the two, depending on the circumstances and his emotional state at the time.
This has been your pattern for years. For example, you threatened to beat up Richard Kaller, and then quickly claimed that you didn’t mean it. One day you’d be his biggest defender, and the next a brutal enemy. You berated Paul Burns, and then gave him a forum on your board. You see-saw between outright hostility and transparent timidity.
You likely regard this as “philosophical BS”. Petty minds often do. But what you think is of little concern to me.
Harvey: Somehow, you seemed to position yourself here as the Guru of I don't know what but man, we all have something to add here and just because it our opinions oppose yours doesn't mean we're "out to get you".
If I am regarded as a Guru—a title that I have never claimed—then it would be by the evaluations of others. Assuming that such is true (i.e., that I am regarded as a Guru), I can only conclude that it is on the basis of the ideas I present and my manner of doing so. I present logical arguments for my positions. I cite numbers and facts. I do not threaten or berate others, even when they disagree with me.
According to Wikipedia, a guru "is a person who is regarded as having great knowledge, wisdom and authority in a certain area, and uses it to guide others." I did not explicitly seek such a status, but if I have attained it, I would not regard it as a bad thing. But why would that bother you? Does any success that I have attained threaten you?
I have never had an issue with someone disagreeing with me. However, I expect more than “you are wrong because I said so”. That is neither compelling nor factual. It explains nothing. And until facts are presented that refute my position, I will remain adamant in that position.
My position is not a matter of opinion. It is based on facts. You imply that all opinions have equal merit, an idea that I thoroughly reject. An opinion that is not founded on facts is just a fantasy.
Interestingly, you find it necessary to point out that those who disagree with me are not “out to get [me]”. Whatever would give you the impression that I think that? The fact that I have the courage and conviction to stand up for myself and my ideas does not mean that I think others are "out to get me". I can only conclude that you are projecting your own insecurities upon me.
You recently joined the board, and within a short time were attempting to assert your authority by reference to your family’s history in the industry. You repeatedly told us that your arguments are true “because you’ve seen it”. You claimed profundity for comments that others regarded as obvious. These are not the actions or attitudes of someone who is interested in learning and sharing. These are the actions and attitudes of someone who is trying to impress. When those tactics did not work, you resorted to childish and fallacious attacks on me.
I have largely avoided you for the past several years. I had previously told you that I did not appreciate or condone your tactics and I would not be party to them. For a brief period you behaved in a more civil manner, but when you could no longer resist your natural inclination to be rude and arrogant, I ceased visiting your board.
That was apparently unacceptable to you. You responded by attacking me on your board, but didn’t have the courage to name me. When I questioned you on this, you refused to deny that you were referring to me. You apparently thought that I, and others, could not see through your transparent and petty anger.
More recently you have taken the same approach on the board. Others on the board contacted me privately, asking why you were attacking me. You may be deluding yourself with your visions of grandeur and your underhanded methods, but others are not buying your silliness. Nor are they blind to the object of your hatred.
I do not know the source of your insecurities. But they are obviously deep and profound. Given your frequent reference to your family’s history in the industry, I suspect that therein lies some, if not all, of the answer. But that is speculation, and I will not claim it to be true.
When you attacked me earlier this year, I was content to limit access to my open letter. I gave access to less than 6 people and had password protection on the letter. You did not know this, and your emails pleading for me to remove the letter were further evidence of your second-hand nature. It was rather evident that you could not tolerate the idea that many people could be reading the truth about you.
You have again chosen to attack me publicly. Justice demands that I treat you in the manner that you deserve. This is my way of doing so. If you wish to make an ass of yourself, I will not stand in the way. I will however, document that fact and I will continue to share it when and where appropriate. I may also reveal your true identify, at my discretion, to those who ask.
I have never had an issue with someone disagreeing with me. However, I expect more than “you are wrong because I said so”. That is neither compelling nor factual. It explains nothing. And until facts are presented that refute my position, I will remain adamant in that position.
My position is not a matter of opinion. It is based on facts. You imply that all opinions have equal merit, an idea that I thoroughly reject. An opinion that is not founded on facts is just a fantasy.
Interestingly, you find it necessary to point out that those who disagree with me are not “out to get [me]”. Whatever would give you the impression that I think that? The fact that I have the courage and conviction to stand up for myself and my ideas does not mean that I think others are "out to get me". I can only conclude that you are projecting your own insecurities upon me.
You recently joined the board, and within a short time were attempting to assert your authority by reference to your family’s history in the industry. You repeatedly told us that your arguments are true “because you’ve seen it”. You claimed profundity for comments that others regarded as obvious. These are not the actions or attitudes of someone who is interested in learning and sharing. These are the actions and attitudes of someone who is trying to impress. When those tactics did not work, you resorted to childish and fallacious attacks on me.
I have largely avoided you for the past several years. I had previously told you that I did not appreciate or condone your tactics and I would not be party to them. For a brief period you behaved in a more civil manner, but when you could no longer resist your natural inclination to be rude and arrogant, I ceased visiting your board.
That was apparently unacceptable to you. You responded by attacking me on your board, but didn’t have the courage to name me. When I questioned you on this, you refused to deny that you were referring to me. You apparently thought that I, and others, could not see through your transparent and petty anger.
More recently you have taken the same approach on the board. Others on the board contacted me privately, asking why you were attacking me. You may be deluding yourself with your visions of grandeur and your underhanded methods, but others are not buying your silliness. Nor are they blind to the object of your hatred.
I do not know the source of your insecurities. But they are obviously deep and profound. Given your frequent reference to your family’s history in the industry, I suspect that therein lies some, if not all, of the answer. But that is speculation, and I will not claim it to be true.
When you attacked me earlier this year, I was content to limit access to my open letter. I gave access to less than 6 people and had password protection on the letter. You did not know this, and your emails pleading for me to remove the letter were further evidence of your second-hand nature. It was rather evident that you could not tolerate the idea that many people could be reading the truth about you.
You have again chosen to attack me publicly. Justice demands that I treat you in the manner that you deserve. This is my way of doing so. If you wish to make an ass of yourself, I will not stand in the way. I will however, document that fact and I will continue to share it when and where appropriate. I may also reveal your true identify, at my discretion, to those who ask.
© BEP Enterprises Incorporated 2008. Reproduction or distribution in whole or part, by any means, is prohibited.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment