In the interests of a certain neutrality of presentation, I am omitting mention of the specific episode seemingly prompting this correspondence, and while the following citations are listed out of chronological order, I’ve done nothing to edit them or diminish their impact. In a nutshell, here is the case against me.
"(Roger is fostering) a culture of negativity and community dissent bred through loaded discourse ... (this is) negative and tearing down others’ committed and well intentioned acts.And so, the prosecution rests.
"Facts are distorted, reputations are sullied, and some of the authors are projecting their beliefs on other people's actions, like the conspiracies imagined and connected to every good work/project.
"When folks attempt to try and do something toward community betterment (they) are raked over the coals for doing so.
"(What is missing) is an effort on (Roger’s) part to be a part of the solution, to offer input on problem-solving on some of these issues. Why not take the time to call and have some dialogue and understand … instead, public criticism through the blog becomes your bully pulpit.
"(These words will) be distorted and predictably used as further fodder for your destructive antics.
"Many folks have told me that they refuse to patronize your business because of your condescending tactics and negativity.
"See how toxic your approach can be."
Is there even hope of a defense?
Discuss.
