[gha] Re: GHA - Do We Stand for Peace?
- From: María Cristina Azcona <mcrisazcona@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: gha <gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:09:57 -0300
I stand for peace in the GHA
*María Cristina Azcona*
*@macazcona*
*María Cristina Azcona*
2014-06-18 8:30 GMT-03:00 Martin, Glen T <gmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Dear friends and colleagues,
>
>
>
> I want to thank Bruce for his serious concern about how we are to proceed
> with this GHA book and as a group. My view is that our book should be
> published with the highest intellectual integrity, that is, recognizing
> that we are a group of dedicated peace-makers trying to make a contribution
> within a much larger peace movement going on for the past half century or
> more. We should not separate off our own peace views as if they were in a
> “war” with other peace views. Rather, our book should unite with others in
> the larger peace movement with honesty, humility, and authenticity. Only in
> this way will we be making a serious contribution to peace.
>
>
>
> Yours in peace and hope,
>
> Glen Martin
>
>
>
> *Dr. Glen T. Martin*
>
>
>
> President, World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA)
> www.worldparliament-gov.org
>
> President, Institute on World Problems (IOWP) www.worldproblems.net
>
> Professor, Philosophy and Peace Studies, Radford University
> www.radford.edu/gmartin
>
> Laureate, GUSI Peace Prize International
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gha-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gha-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Bruce Cook, AuthorMe.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:52 PM
> *To:* gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Leo Semashko
> *Subject:* [gha] GHA - Do We Stand for Peace?
>
>
>
> 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 address:
>
>
>
> //www.freelists.org/archive/GHA
> <//www.freelists.org/archive/gha>
>
>
>
> 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 leader.
>
> 2. The leader remains silent for a couple of days.
>
> 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 him.
>
>
>
> 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 personal attack.
>
>
>
> 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 ago.
>
>
>
> 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 continuing 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
>
> 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
> 312-859-8090
> cookcomm@xxxxxxxxx
> www.harmonyofnations.com
> http://author-me.com
>
> http://www.peacefromharmony. org/?cat=en_c&key=544
> <http://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=544>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
