[gha] GHA - Do We Stand for Peace?

  • From: "Bruce Cook, AuthorMe.com" <cookcomm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Leo Semashko <leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:51:32 -0700

Dear GHA members,

I greet you with a
subject of concern to all of us: Do we agree to continue with the existing
current level of rage and bias in GHA communications, or would we prefer to
take a more balanced approach worthy of academic rigor?
To asses this problem,
I invite you to review 2013-2014 digests of GHA communications at the following
As you might have
already noted, no credible academic organization would tolerate this level of
rage and bias. Frankly, its presence is (or, I believe, should be) an
embarrassment to all members.
Instead, as I have
recently indicated, I strongly feel that GHA e-mails, etc., need to be more
conducive to peaceful discourse. I even appealed to Leo to consider this
possibility, for almost all of the embarrassing emails issue from his address.
In reviewing the GHA
digests, one cannot fail to note our fearless leader’s regularity in making
mean personal attacks against members. The immature progression  follows
a regular, predictable modus operandi.
1. A member disagrees with or criticizes the
2. The leader remains silent for a couple of
3. The leader conducts what political groups
call "opposition research" in which he does one of two things:
3a. Gathers facts to discredit whoever has had
the gall to criticize him.
3b. "Sets up" the opposition to
obtain facts by asking deliberate questions with copies to all GHA members
4. Prepares and mails out a tirade with
drunken sailor qualities for the purpose of discrediting the critic and
intimidating other members so future criticism will be discouraged.
Against this
background, I was pleased this morning to receive a seemingly friendly email
from Leo.
In this email, he
finally relented by accepting my request to write me directly on administrative
matters, without copying the message to all members. For this I truly commend
Second, in this email,
he asked that I send him a copy of the GHA list. After all, I had claimed we
had 800+ people on the list. Well, upon researching this, I realized that Leo
was correct and we have a much lower number of members. I must have been
thinking of another of the lists I maintain. Or perhaps I was thinking of GHA
before its split in 2005. In any case, it was my error and I freely apologize
to everyone.
I should note that I recently
criticized Leo on another matter and asked to be spared from his traditional 
Alas, Leo had another
request for me. He was asking me, with copies to everyone, to edit a document I
had already told him I would not edit. Sadly, this revealed that has purpose
was to "set me up" for a personal attack. (This comes under item 3b
in the modus operandi above.)
What was really
happening? If you have been following the GHA messages (and I suspect that few
have been reading GHA messages) you will clearly realize that he wanted me to
legitimize a personal attack diatribe against Glen Martin he wrote a few weeks
Why did Leo ask me to do
this again? After all, I had refused to edit it. Naturally, he expected me to
refuse again, and this would constitute another personal failing for him to
lament in his personal attack – in which he could slam me for being an
American, like Glen. (Perhaps you have noted a definite bias against Americans
in Leo's diatribes.)
As part of this, I
would expect Leo to claim that I had already agreed to edit the diatribe
against Glen. But that is incorrect, for I only agreed to edit Leo's book, and
it is not at all clear that a diatribe of this quality should be included in a
book which so far is claiming to advocate harmony and peace.
Now, I could avoid his
attack. I would just have to relent and edit his personal attack on Glen
Martin. How easy that would be. But it’s clearly time to draw the line on this 
disturbance in GHA’s notion of peace. I ask everyone. What do we stand for if
not peace? That's peace in the world, but also peace in our communications with 
each other. Don't we need to "walk the talk" of peace?
Thus, today, I am
turning to the group. This time, unlike Leo's biased tradition of taking a
"vote" by assuming everyone agrees with him if they don't write in
and disagree (with the obvious risk of being attacked themselves), I will take
another approach.
1. If you, as a GHA
member would like Leo to continue with his acerbic attacks, please write an
email to the group in which you say" "I agree that Leo should
continue with his personal attacks."
2. If you, as a GHA
member, feel that Leo's criticism of Glen is warranted and worthy of placement
on the GHA website, please write an email to the group in which you say "I
agree that Leo's personal attack on Glen Martin is worthy of publication.”
3. If you are (or plan
to be) an author of an article in Leo's new book, please write an email to the
group in which you say "I have no objection if Leo's personal attack on
Glen Martin is published in the same book as my article."
I leave the question
there. If everyone is truly pleased with the direction GHA emails have taken, I
will be glad to reconsider.
Yours in pursuit of
harmony and peace,
Bruce L. Cook, Ph.D.
President, GHA-USA
Vice-President, GHA
Director of CSSS Publishing and Editorial team
President, World Writers Resources, Inc.
Author, Harmony of Nations: 1943 – 2020, Just Fiction Editions, 2012
1407 Getzelman Drive
Elgin, IL 60123 USA

Attachment: !_GLEN_CRITICISM AND DEGENERACY_29-05-14.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

Other related posts: