RE: detente
From:
David Pardo
(dpardo@outlook.com)Sent:Fri 8/17/12 8:41 AMTo:Joe Carson (jpcarson@tds.net)Cc:loringjustice@loringjustice.com; evy brown (eb4justice@gmail.com)I never interpreted "Evy's letter" as being about some "open letter". You did. I wad referring to the oneyou proposed to be sent to GAP's board, and then told Evy to take a first crack at it. It's the only one youmade a demand about.Again, you made an accusation of distortions, so burden is on you to prosecute. I won't do your work foryou.Sent from my Kindle Fire
From:
Joe Carson <jpcarson@tds.net>
Sent:
Fri Aug 17 08:34:28 EDT 2012
To:
'David Pardo' <dpardo@outlook.com>
Subject:
RE: detente
read my email - quote from it in your criƟque and you will see your criƟque is baseless. Read my email about'reining devine in" and you will see your criƟque is baseless. Then fuck off, liar.
From:
David Pardo [mailto:dpardo@outlook.com]
Sent:
Friday, August 17, 2012 8:05 AM
To:
Joe Carson
Subject:
RE: detente
What are the distortions? Again, nonspecific allegations not backed up with any facts. Ever wonder whyno one listens to you? This is part of it.Sent from my Kindle Fire
From:
Joe Carson < jpcarson@tds.net>
Sent:
Fri Aug 17 08:00:56 EDT 2012
Outlook Print Messagehttps://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=5228df0d-...1 of 58/17/2012 10:13 AM
To:
'David Pardo' <dpardo220@gmail.com>
Subject:
RE: detente
you don't read carefully and you hit "send" way to soon. Vis-à-vis evy leƩer -I purposed a leƩer to leaders of NGO's, not an open leƩer. You really don't get your facts straight before making incorrect evals. I did not inviteyour appraisal of me and I really don't respect you enough to conisder it. That is reality, and your behavior iswhat earned it. there are so many inaccurcies/distorƟons in what follows just cements my opinion that youreally, truly, do not respect truth when inconvenient to whatever you wish to claim. When I can see an area of mutual interest, perhaps we can do something, but it has to be independent of trust, because I know beƩer thanto trust you. That is my opinion of your character, and it is quite firml at this point.
From:
dpardo@outlook.com [mailto:dpardo@outlook.com]
On Behalf Of
David Pardo
Sent:
Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:20 PM
To:
Joe Carson
Subject:
RE: detente
Joe, Since we're being honest, I respect your goals but I do not respect some of your methods, chiefly yourintolerance of disagreement. I have the right to refuse to be coerced or threatened with ulƟmatums (asI perceive it) to go along with your specific agenda. I believe you do not appreciate that others may notsee things your way or have the background knowledge and so you are quick to cast moral judgment,when ulƟmately it harms your cause and when you are not free of sin either. A case in point is demanding that Evy's leƩer include your demand that the NGO's support your agenda.It was clear to me and Evy that now was not the Ɵme to do that but that geƫng Tom out of the waywould benefit your cause as well as others', in short order, but you could not see it, for whateverreason. So the work conƟnues whether you sign on or not. You are incorrect about my reasons for exposing Tom. It is not
solely
about WPEA. It is also aboutmaking sure OSC and MSPB fulfill their mandates. Why else would I make rulemaking peƟƟons and FOIArequests related to 1204(a)(3) and 1214(e)?I also do not know what you are referring to when you talk about my blog being anything other than"jusƟce for all, including me." I am not pursuing my case against the FAA on it. It is in everyone's interestto expose MSPB and OSC. It is in everyone's interest to have a healthy dynamic in the community and a
utlook Print Messagehttps://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=5228df0d-...of 58/17/2012 10:13 AM
reformed MISC. It is in probaƟonary employees' interest to have more informaƟon; I am the oneproviding it to others because that has been my experience, but it is not strictly to my benefit. But, alas,what do I really care what you think of me and my blog? You have a habit of making nonspecific allegaƟons without backing them up with evidence, and thenshiŌing the burden to the other person to disprove you. I don't know where you got this bad habit, butthat's what it is. It is exactly what Harry Reid has done to MiƩ Romney, and agree with it or not as apoliƟcal tacƟc, it's shady, as noted by many people. You alleged several Ɵmes that I have asperger's. I do not, and I can prove it. But I do not
need
to prove itto you. If I were to sue you for defamaƟon, you would lose for having reckless disregard for the truth.The truth is an absolute defense, but you do not have evidence for it. SpeculaƟon does not sufficeeither. You should also consider whether the way people behave around you is influenced by thecontroversial tacƟcs you take. You also do not have the moral right to wish for me to lose my case because "it would give [you]pleasure," and then claim the mantle of advancing jusƟce for federal employees and whistleblowers. Itdoes not maƩer who I am in the eyes of the law. JusƟce is supposed to be blind, and there is noexcepƟon for when someone is being less than kind to you.So given these views, do you believe that you can refrain from needless judgment and/or provideadequate jusƟficaƟon when you do not? Finally, I do not owe you any respect above and beyond as a fellow human being. I don't care how muchyou've suffered and I have no wish to compare and quanƟfy suffering either. (On the other hand, younever lost your job, and a $125k salary plus whatever Karen makes in Tennessee is not exactly slummingit, unlike lesser fortunate whistleblowers in the community... ) I will meet you as an equal partner but Iwill not kiss your ring. CollaboraƟon is a two way street. These are my concerns. The choice is yours whether we can work onthese terms. David
utlook Print Messagehttps://bay002.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=5228df0d-...of 58/17/2012 10:13 AM
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
