[candidate-development] [statecom-discuss] Link to the Minority Opinion

[Mike Heichman]

John,

Your behavior continues to be disrespectful and insulting. "The leader 
of our diminishing band is female." We are not a band, all of us are 
leaders, the "female" is a transparent attempt to name your favorite 
target, and we are not diminishing.

In addition it is you who is being self-righteous. How many times have 
you declared that this controversy is over?

I don't find this discussion entertaining. Anyone who would consider 
this mess entertaining should immediately make contact with a therapist.

Mike

PS. If you would like to continue our personal conversation, I ask that 
you spare the State Comm, CDLC and Locals lists from our further 
personal messages and we can continue our conversation privately.


John Walsh wrote:

> Mike,
> I used the word "mistress" as the female equivalent of "master," and 
> not in the sense of paramour.  I used it, because the leader of your 
> diminishing band is female.  Methinks you protest too much.
>
> Sexism is a word that should not be so lightly thrown about.  I have 
> found that charge is leveled at both men and women too frequently by 
> yourself and certain others.  Making that charge is not only hostile 
> but self-righteous, a very dangerous quality which has often proved 
> the undoing of the left,  and was on full display at the convention. 
>  Have you guys ever heard the story about the boy who cried wolf? 
>  These baseless charges, when used cynically to win the day 
> politically, weaken the cause of feminism.  Shame on those who do so.
>
> The conflict was resolved long ago at the state convention, then in 
> the state committee and then by the co-chairs.  So I wish your band 
> would just let go.  The chairs have other things to do.
>
> Your attack on me is purely personal and you should cease that modus 
> vivendi - entertaining though it may be.
> john walsh
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Mike Heichman wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> You are being hostile and disrespectful.
>>
>> I am not attempting to pester or harangue anyone.
>>
>> I'm sure that the co-chairs are busy and agree that their time is 
>> valuable. That's also true for those of us who aren't co-chairs.
>>
>> I don't have a mistress and your comment is sexist.
>>
>> I don't know what bad choice that I made.
>>
>> Your comments are not helpful for those of us who want to come up with a 
>> resolution to the conflict.
>>
>> That is not your intention.
>>
>> Once again, you attack those who disagree with you and attempt to 
>> cultivate favor with those who you consider your ally. However, when 
>> they disagree with you, you will turn on them. I have seen that 
>> repeatedly in our relationship and with your relationship with others.
>>
>> Mike Heichman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>> Why do you continue to pester Merelice?
>>> And for whom do you do it?
>>> Our co-chairs are busy, and I am afraid we have reached the point 
>>> where your service to your mistress has deprived you of all credibility.
>>>
>>> The GRP is moving on - and you have made your choice,  a bad one.
>>> Please stop haranguing our co-chairs.  
>>> john walsh 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Mike Heichman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Merelice,
>>>>
>>>> I find the tone of your letter to be hostile and disrespectful.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of your attempts to place candidates on your ballot before 
>>>> the 
>>>> December 6 deadline, I have always been understanding and supportive. 
>>>> You and Nat had just been elected co-chairs at the end of August. CDLC 
>>>> was not meeting and you were relying on Elie Yarden, who did the 
>>>> bulk of 
>>>> the work in making contact with the potential candidates. The state 
>>>> legislature had changed the rules and suddenly you lost an entire 
>>>> month 
>>>> and had to make decisons before December 6. While I agree with Dan 
>>>> M.'s 
>>>> point that you should have consulted with Adcom when you had 
>>>> encoutered 
>>>> difficulties, I do not believe that you, Nat and Elie had done nothing 
>>>> short of your best efforts to comply with the decisions of the Stte 
>>>> Committee and the August Convention.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that on December 6 that you only had on hand 
>>>> all of 
>>>> the documents from Dr. Mesplay.
>>>>
>>>> I have never made a proposal that said that we should deny 
>>>> delegates to 
>>>> everyone who had not complied with all the requrements by December 6! 
>>>> The two proposals submitted yesterday say nothing about December 6. 
>>>> Your 
>>>> e-mail proposal of February 7 said nothing about December 6. Etc.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you continue bring up December 6? I believe that you are 
>>>> attempting to distract everyone from the real issues.
>>>>
>>>> I have not deliberately intended to misinform anyone. The authors 
>>>> of the 
>>>> "Minority Report" have attempted to present our viewpoint. The title, 
>>>> "Minority Report" by definition acknowledges that there are different 
>>>> perspectives.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of your statement that "only a few people have refused to 
>>>> accept and are now fomenting unnecessary dissension", that is an 
>>>> insult 
>>>> to the members of our party (currently 16 members). The authors of the 
>>>> "Minority Report" believe that something serious has gone wrong and we 
>>>> are seeking a just remedy. If that is a crime, why does our party 
>>>> exist?
>>>>
>>>> You are the co-chair of our party. Why can't you tolerate dissent?
>>>>
>>>> You were very upset that the letter from Kat Swift ( a member of our 
>>>> party who is seeking the Green Party's nomination and has complied 
>>>> with 
>>>> all of the requirements) was publicized by Larry Elly. You made it 
>>>> clear 
>>>> that you would have preferred to have kept that secret. Kat Swift is a 
>>>> party that so far has been harmed by the actions of the leadership of 
>>>> the GRP. She has a right to file a complaint and seek redress of her 
>>>> grievance. She is seeking a just remedy.
>>>>
>>>> I have never attempted to impose any remedy. I have always said that I 
>>>> want to seek a just remedy and have reached out to other members 
>>>> who are 
>>>> part of the leadership of the party in search of a remedy.
>>>>
>>>> Using the term "pious" to describe my behavior is disrespectful.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Heichman
>>>>
>>>> Merelice wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/8/08, Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net 
>>>>> <mailto:mikeheichman at verizon.net> 
>>>>> <mailto:mikeheichman at verizon.net>> wrote:
>>>>> .....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Why are you targeting Congresswoman McKinney in your remarks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And why do you continue to ignore the fact that if all the candidates
>>>>> were required to fulfill your interpretation of the rules (an
>>>>> interpretation not shared by those who have been most actively
>>>>> involved in these deliberations), Cynthia McKinney also would not have
>>>>> been on the ballot? As of the deadline, she had not announced her
>>>>> intention to seek the nomination. So you can offer only two choices by
>>>>> your set of standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not question the motives of the growing list of signatories. I
>>>>> seriously question the misinformation they have been fed that leads
>>>>> them to think they are supporting an effort based on principle. You
>>>>> cannot deny that they have heard only your side of the story and do
>>>>> not have first-hand knowledge of all the debate and discussions that
>>>>> have led to the conclusions of the majority, conclusions that only a
>>>>> few people have refused to accept and are now fomenting unnecessary
>>>>> dissension.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, the misinformation has now been fed to and used by a
>>>>> candidate to level charges in a formal complaint against the Elections
>>>>> Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, as well as against
>>>>> party volunteers!
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that long history, why should anyone trust your pious offer to
>>>>> seek resolutions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Merelice
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org 
>>>>> <mailto:statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org> 
>>>>> <mailto:statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> candidate-development mailing list
>>>> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org 
>>>> <mailto:candidate-development at green-rainbow.org> 
>>>> <mailto:candidate-development at green-rainbow.org>
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>>>>
>>>
>>> John V. Walsh, MD
>>> Professor of Physiology
>>> University of Massachusetts Medical School
>>> 508-856-3360 (Office)
>>> 508-868-1653 (Cell)
>>> john.walsh at umassmed.edu <mailto:john.walsh at umassmed.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> candidate-development mailing list
>> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org 
>> <mailto:candidate-development at green-rainbow.org>
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>>
>
> John V. Walsh, MD
> Professor of Physiology
> University of Massachusetts Medical School
> 508-856-3360 (Office)
> 508-868-1653 (Cell)
> john.walsh at umassmed.edu <mailto:john.walsh at umassmed.edu>
>
>
>