Resveratrol Joint Purchase Project Final Report
Paul Antonik Wakfer
purchase of >99% pure synthetic trans-resveratrol at the lowest price
possible for all those who were willing to prepay for 100 grams or
more.
Since this project was first proposed on sle, and several updates to
it were also posted to sle as it went along, I thought it only
appropriate to also post here a final report about the project now
that it is complete.
There was an initial purchase and distribution in late December 2006
of 4 kg from Orchid Pharma in India, the company that supplied the
resveratrol for the experiments reported in: http://pmid.us/17086191
and http://pmid.us/ 17112576
Although Orchid had agreed to deliver 7 kg more in another couple of
months, after finding out that I was obtaining it as part of a group
purchase for human consumption, they refused to deliver any more.
The next portion was procured from China after a very lengthy search
effort using a China import specialist and the ultimate commissioning
of a company there to newly synthesize it. During this lengthy
process, the additional joint purchase amount was increased to 26 kg
by the influx of many additional joint purchasers and the increase in
desired amounts of several joint purchasers. This was also fortunate
since a larger quantity was needed in order to make the special order
more attractive to a new synthesizer.
After much delay due to finding a source, testing samples and
collecting payment funds (which actually went very well considering
that fairly large sums of money were being sent to someone - me - only
known through the Internet), the final production shipment of the 26
kg arrived in two parts, 25 kg on July 14 and 1 kg on Aug 10 (sent
directly to a large joint purchaser).
All joint purchasers have now received their desired resveratrol
shipments. Two foreign ones elected to receive two separate shipments
and have yet to be sent the second one.
The final joint purchaser participation data is as follows:
The totals do not include those who, before the call for payment was
issued, changed their orders. "Last minute" implies that the events
took place *after* the call for payments to place the purchase order
to which each joint purchaser was at that time committed by virtue of
not having previously notified me of a change. Therefore, *reneger*
means a person who was so committed and either informed me only after
I issued the call for payment that s/he was not going to purchase OR
never replied at all, even though sent several notices with no sign of
email rejection.
Here is the list of renegers and their Internet identification as best
I have:
Larry Oertel aka velopismo for 1000 gm
William Jewell aka malbecman for 600 gm
Richard Kaufman aka Max Watt for 600 gm
Robert (Bob) Fisher aka saxiephon for 500 gm
Nicolae Buiceag for 200 gm
Vic Sarjoo (radicalfunds) for 200 gm
Brad Hirshon aka BBH29 for 100 gm
Gary Hulse for 100 gm
Alex Kalman aka bixbyte for 100 gm
James Lowes for 100 gm
Brien Quirk aka quirk8963 for 100 gm
All that the above people needed to do to prevent being on this list
was to have informed me *before the call for payments was made* that
due to the changed circumstances of the purchase (enormous delay,
slight price increase, other resveratrol market changes, etc.) s/he
had decided not to purchase. This would have been the responsible
thing to do, since it was clear all along that the order size and
determination of when to order and call for payments was predicated on
the total amount of committed purchasers. Because of this need to rely
on such commitments, I consider that such commitments were certainly
moral contracts (I, personally, have no interest in legal contracts
since I do not sanction any notion of legality - which is a government
creation) with respect to *all other* joint purchasers. The above is
purely factual information. Whether or not anyone evaluates it as
being defamatory to any of the named individuals is entirely up to
such evaluator.
I also have email addresses, telephone numbers and full home addresses
for all these people, if anyone has a valid reason for needing this
information.
Total last minute renegers: 3.6 kg
Total last minute cancellation or reduction because of extenuating
circumstances: 1.1 kg
Total lost: 4.7 kg (sum of above 2 lines)
Total last minute increases from committed purchasers: 4.6 kg
Total last minute new joint purchasers: 0.7 kg
Total gained: 5.3 (sum of above 2 lines)
Final joint purchase total: 26 kg
The resveratrol amount received by me (and Kitty) for personal use had
to be reduced by about 25 grams due to amounts sent for testing, lost
in repackaging during distribution, lost by non-recovery from the
shipping container and apparent small shortage in received amount.
The private Yahoo group that was created for the purpose of
communication between the joint purchasers has now been deleted.
--Paul Wakfer
Resveratrol Joint Purchase Coordinator
bb...@yahoo.com
Paul I first contacted you on January 21st 2007.
You did not contact me until April 11th about the order details
(delivery time, price etc. .). I informed youl on April 18th that I
was no longer interested in the purchase very soon after you provided
the details. I think it is reasonable for someone to change their
mind if they don't hear anything about a proposed order in 90 days.
Just wondering, did you place an order before April 18th?
It sounds like the actual transaction because concluded six months
after you intiated it, so I am glad I am opted out.
Substantially similar product is available within five days from the
date of order.
Sincerely,
Brad Hirshon
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> On Sep 1, 11:04 pm, Paul Antonik Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
[snipped irrelevant parts of my original]
> > The final joint purchaser participation data is as follows:
>
> > The totals do not include those who, before the call for payment was
> > issued, changed their orders. "Last minute" implies that the events
> > took place *after* the call for payments to place the purchase order
> > to which each joint purchaser was at that time committed by virtue of
> > not having previously notified me of a change. Therefore, *reneger*
> > means a person who was so committed and either informed me only after
> > I issued the call for payment that s/he was not going to purchase OR
> > never replied at all, even though sent several notices with no sign of
> > email rejection.
>
> > Here is the list of renegers and their Internet identification as best
> > I have:
>
> > Larry Oertel aka velopismo for 1000 gm
> > William Jewell aka malbecman for 600 gm
> > Richard Kaufman aka Max Watt for 600 gm
> > Robert (Bob) Fisher aka saxiephon for 500 gm
> > Nicolae Buiceag for 200 gm
> > Vic Sarjoo (radicalfunds) for 200 gm
> > BradHirshon aka BBH29 for 100 gm
> > Gary Hulse for 100 gm
> > Alex Kalman aka bixbyte for 100 gm
> > James Lowes for 100 gm
> > Brien Quirk aka quirk8963 for 100 gm
>
> > All that the above people needed to do to prevent being on this list
> > was to have informed me *before the call for payments was made* that
> > due to the changed circumstances of the purchase (enormous delay,
> > slight price increase, other resveratrol market changes, etc.) s/he
> > had decided not to purchase. This would have been the responsible
> > thing to do, since it was clear all along that the order size and
> > determination of when to order and call for payments was predicated on
> > the total amount of committed purchasers. Because of this need to rely
> > on such commitments, I consider that such commitments were certainly
> > moral contracts (I, personally, have no interest in legal contracts
> > since I do not sanction any notion of legality - which is a government
> > creation) with respect to *all other* joint purchasers. The above is
> > purely factual information. Whether or not anyone evaluates it as
> > being defamatory to any of the named individuals is entirely up to
> > such evaluator.
> > I also have email addresses, telephone numbers and full home addresses
> > for all these people, if anyone has a valid reason for needing this
> > information.
>
> Paul I first contacted you on January 21st 2007.
>
> You did not contact me until April 11th about the order details
> (delivery time, price etc. .).
Actually, this is misleading information. I retained all of our email
correspondence and here is what that record shows;
1. You contacted me on 01/21/07
2. I replied with full current information on 01/21/07
3. Since you had not replied, I did a resend of my 01/21/07 reply on
02/06/07
4. You then sent me your group participation amount and address
information, which committed you to an order until and unless you told
me otherwise before the call for payment. You also wanted to send a
check at that time and asked about insurance.
5. On 02/06/07 we had several additional exchanges in which I gave you
my address, told you that no check was wanted until the order was
ready for placement and that you could have insurance by paying a
little extra, but it was not likely necessary. I also requested your
home address (the first given was an office) which you supplied, but
said that USPS refused to deliver there. However, you agreed that it
would be perhaps better to pick it up at the post office when
delivered.
6. In my last message to you on 02/06/07 I included the text:
"Okay you are on the list. I will let you know when payment is needed
so that I can place the order. In the meantime join the private yahoo
group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rsvgb in order to participant in
updated information, discussion and a final choice of supplier."
You never did join the joint buyers information private Yahoo group
where all update information was posted. As merely the coordinator of
this joint purchase, rather than a buyer who was then reselling a
product, I could not spend the time to communicate individually with
60+ people. The private Yahoo group (now deleted) was formed to
facilitate that communication. A few people did not join the group and
I reasonably assumed that they did not want any extra email traffic or
for other reasons did not wish to participate in the joint purchase
decision making.
The only reason that you received an email from me on April 11
(actually mine shows 01:35 April 12 AZ time), was because I had
information which needed to be communicated to *all* committed joint
purchasers (including those few who had not joined the group). That
information was that the point had been reached with sufficient
checkout and testing (which I only briefly described since all the
details had been posted to the Yahoo group) to now place the joint
order. And therefore that it was now time to send in the payments for
that order. I concluded that message with:
"If anyone has any questions about how much you owe and for what
quantity, then send me private email.
For any other questions please post them to the RSVGB Yahoo group
where I have also posted a copy of this message sent directly to
everyone."
> I informed youl on April 18th that I
> was no longer interested in the purchase very soon after you provided
> the details.
Not quite. You sent no reply to my message of April 11/12 until I sent
you a reminder on April 19 00:46 AZ time, informing you of the details
of your commitment.
> I think it is reasonable for someone to change their
> mind if they don't hear anything about a proposed order in 90 days.
It was more like 60 days and it was your fault for not joining the
group as instructed. Besides which your message gave no reason at all
why you could not have informed me ahead of my call for payments
(which call was predicated on a certain amount of committed purchase).
Here is the email that you sent including a copy of my reminder.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Joint Resveratrol Purchase
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: brad hirshon <bb...@yahoo.com>
To: Paul Wakfer <pa...@morelife.org>
Hi Paul:
I think at this point, I am sticking to store bought resveratrol.
There are a multitude of reasons for this:
- supplier is unknown
- risk of not receiving product
- risk of product not being pure
- price decreases of store bought resveratrol since the announcement
- the tone in your notes to other list members since purchase idea
came about made me a bit nervous to engage in this type of
transaction
*** The following comment is interjected only for this message to
sle.
I can only guess that the "list" to which you refer may be the Yahoo
group resveratrol-users, from which I resigned as a member on March 1,
after rejection by many (including the group owner/moderator) of my
expressions of concern for the scientific level of information being
posted on that group. I am not interested in chat groups in which
unsupported opinions are regularly posted. Perhaps you misread my
message above where I gave you a direct link to the joint purchasers
communication group and joined the resveratrol-users group instead.
***
- other additional reasons that i don't really care to list at this
point in time
Please realize that there was no legal commitment or moral one for
that matter, so you might want to be careful about broadcasting that
private persons have not met commitments. Such a broadcast is possibly
defamatory which may subject you to legal claims, and really does not
further any interest of yours.
I still respect your comments when you have something to add to
discussion provides helpful information. But I don't respect your
means of communication.
-Brad
Paul Wakfer <pa...@morelife.org> wrote:
Brad,
If you have already sent payment, my apologies for bothering you.
If you have not sent payment then here again, appended below, is
the information sent out last week.
We have already had 6 people who did not honor their commitments,
none of which related to emergency situations causing lack of funds.
Richard Kaufman aka Max Watt for 300 gm
*** I removed a name that I had incorrectly placed on the list at that
time but for which another person was actually responsible ***
Larry Oertel aka velopismo at immist.org for 1000 gm
*** I removed a name who was at that time considered a reneger, but
later came through ***
Alex Kalman aka bixbyte for 100 gm
Brien Quirk for 100 gm
You committed to purchase 100 grams @ $4.00 per gram, which cost
has now risen to $4.05 per gram due to necessary testing (see below
for details).
Therefore you need to send 100 x $4.05 = $405 as soon as possible.
Wiring the money from your bank is now the fastest and costs less than
purchasing a money order and sending it by express mail or courier -
see last appended message below for full details.
Please either respond that you intend to honor your commitment by
sending payment, or that you have done so already.
We need as much information as possible right now so that we can
plan and get ready to order the correct bulk amount.
There will be no additional joint purchase projects by me for at
least 7 months.
Thanks,
--Paul
------------ EOM ----------------
To which email above I responded as follows (which was the last
communication between us until now):
------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Joint Resveratrol Purchase
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:01:28 -0700
From: Paul Wakfer <pa...@morelife.org>
To: brad hirshon <bb...@yahoo.com>
References: <281874....@web57207.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
brad hirshon wrote:
> Hi Paul:
>
> I think at this point, I am sticking to store bought resveratrol. There are a multitude of reasons for this:
>
> - supplier is unknown
The supplier would always remain unknown unless I found it myself,
which I did not want to do because of the vagaries of the Chinese
market. That is why I employed an expert importer. If you had joined
the rsvgb Yahoo group, then all this would have been known to you.
> - risk of not receiving product
There is no risk. Either you get the product or you get your money
back.
> - risk of product not being pure
The purity is guaranteed by the testing.
> - price decreases of store bought resveratrol since the announcement
This synthetic does not compare with store bought resveratrol
extracts.
> - the tone in your notes to other list members since purchase idea came about made me a bit nervous to engage in this type of transaction
I am not sure which list you are talking about, but your remark about
my "tone" means nothing unless you quote my specific writing. All my
writing is always totally frank and honest. If you do not like
honesty, then you have a real problem.
> - other additional reasons that i don't really care to list at this point in time
This was all known to you long ago and you should have told me that
you were canceling when you first decided.
> Please realize that there was no legal committment or moral one for that matter, so you might want to be careful about broadcasting that private persons have not met committments.
By giving me a statement that you wanted to join the group of joint
purchasers for 100 grams together with your name, address and phone
number, you did make a moral commitment to purchase when the time
came. You will now go down on the list of those who have reneged on
their commitment to purchase and your name *will* be publicly posted.
> Such a broadcast is possibly defamatory which may subject you to legal claims, and really does not further any interest of yours.
Talk about poor "tone! You make the arrogant presumption to know
better than *me* what will further my interests! If you will read my
website about social preferencing then you may understand why such
action does further my interest and the interest of everyone else at
the same time. http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html
> I still respect your comments when you have something to add to discussion provides helpful information. But I don't respect your means of communication.
My means of communication is simple, forthright and factual. If you
don't understand that, then you don't understand me and cannot really
respect anything about me. I am a thoroughly integrated and consistent
person. Any attempt by you or anyone else to accept just a part of me
cannot possibly be consistent. You must look to yourself for the
inconsistencies in your thinking.
--Paul
--------------- EOM ----------
>
> Just wondering, did you place an order before April 18th?
No. All committed joint purchasers were informed and asked to send
their payments only when all the checkout and testing had been
completed and a delivery date was close to being set.
> It sounds like the actual transaction because concluded six months
> after you intiated it, so I am glad I am opted out.
This depends on how one defines "the actual transaction". Since the
number of joint purchasers and the amount of the joint purchase
constantly grew, such a definition would be difficult if not
impossible to make. However, there was a total time of about 8 1/2
months from my initial contact with Orchid (for only 11 kg total of
which they only sent 4 kg) until the distribution of the final 26 kg
for a total of 30 kg. But again this is irrelevant to your being
flagged as a reneger. Simply see my very clear definition of my
meaning for that word in my text above from my report.
>
> Substantially similar product is available within five days from the
> date of order.
This is not correct. No pure synthetic resveratrol is available within
the US for personal use on the open market as far as I know.
In any case, this is irrelevant to the terms of your commitment and
your need to inform me ahead of my call for payments (which I state
again was predicated on the committed purchase amount and any lack of
honoring such commitment was a disservice to *all* joint purchasers as
it put the entire joint purchase in jeopardy).
> Sincerely,
>
> Brad Hirshon
--Paul Wakfer
Mike
Wafker. Frankly, I believe that putting people's names onto an
internet forum who had communicated to you in private is a worse
offense than backing out of a joint purchase transaction. You made
yourself look worse than the people whose behavior you complain
about.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
I first want to thank Mike for the opportunity to once again raise the
issues of both anonymity and email privacy.
The notion that there is some "contract" or "agreement", between a
person receiving email and a person sending it has no basis in the
reality of the meaning of the words contract or agreement (in either
verbal or written form). Any logically meaningful and/or valid
contract or agreement requires all parties to the contract to have
understood what the contract states, and to have agreed to it ahead of
time. It therefore makes no sense at all that one party should both be
able to transmit information to another and, at the same time, exact
some sort of agreement on the receiver of the information without the
express consent of that receiver. The only thing that would be
acceptable to me is to first send me a message requesting my agreement
to the non-disclosure of the information that you will send when you
get my agreement. However, this also will not work with me because
almost always (unless I am given very good reasons), I will reply that
I am not willing to give such blanket agreement - if the sender does
not trust me to disclose the information as and to whom I think fit,
then I have no interest in knowing the information.
More fully, I will not be bound to agreement without my consent by any
individual, group, organization or government. I have stated this many
times, in many ways, on my website http://selfsip.org. Such a
principle of operation is the very basis of being a self-sovereign
individual. The reason for my stance on this is that there are
enormous long-range, wide-viewed benefits to be obtained from dealing
only with people who are willing to put their identity behind all
their actions and, even more, in living in a society where most people
behave in this manner. The major reason for this is the responsibility
for one's actions that is engendered by a fully open identity. The
full identification of each individual enables others to evaluate hir
and express that evaluation as a detailed social preference (both
positive and negative) with respect to the personal characteristics
that were displayed and evaluated. An important part of this notion
and practice of social preferencing is that anyone expressing a
preference (positive or negative) also gets evaluated and socially
preferenced by others (as I purposefully leave myself wide open for
anyone to do - and "Mike" has done so with his reply). These kinds of
preferencing actions with respect to the personal characteristics of
individual people are akin to the preferencing actions that occur in
the marketplace of goods and services which ultimately determine the
prices of these products and services and the amounts produced.
Similarly, such a system operating optimally would, in the marketplace
of human personal interactions, determine the types and amounts of
interactions which are conducted between individuals. For more ideas
on social preferencing and the negatives of anonymity/pseudonymity
see: http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html and linked
pages.
BTW, there were about 60 people, other then the few renegers, who were
very happy to send me their full personal identity information, to
stand behind their commitment and to benefit from the resulting joint
purchase that such trusting and cooperative behavior made possible.
That alone was a very pleasing result to me.
I again serve notice to everyone that if you are not willing to put
your real identity behind everything that you do in your relationship
with me, then I have no interest in any relationship with you, since I
cannot trust you to be responsible for your actions. This is the
reason why, in general, I tend not to reply to posts from people with
clearly anonymous handles and names, although I sometimes do, as in
this one.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
bb...@yahoo.com
Hi Paul:
I think we can just agree to disagree. I am sure we can go back and
forth forever. I don't have the time.
My sense is that your posting was intended to be a character attack.
Even if it was not meant to be one, it felt like one. And that's okay.
Though I don't think it is the proper thing to do.
I will not say anything negative about you. But I would recommend
that folks do a simple google search on you and look at how you have
conducted yourself with others. I believe it will become abundantly
clear to them why I and others might have been hesitant to become
involved in a purchasing or business transaction with you.
Sincerely,
Brad Hirshon
> times, in many ways, on my websitehttp://selfsip.org. Such a
> principle of operation is the very basis of being a self-sovereign
> individual. The reason for my stance on this is that there are
> enormous long-range, wide-viewed benefits to be obtained from dealing
> only with people who are willing to put their identity behind all
> their actions and, even more, in living in a society where most people
> behave in this manner. The major reason for this is the responsibility
> for one's actions that is engendered by a fully open identity. The
> full identification of each individual enables others to evaluate hir
> and express that evaluation as a detailed social preference (both
> positive and negative) with respect to the personal characteristics
> that were displayed and evaluated. An important part of this notion
> and practice of social preferencing is that anyone expressing a
> preference (positive or negative) also gets evaluated and socially
> preferenced by others (as I purposefully leave myself wide open for
> anyone to do - and "Mike" has done so with his reply). These kinds of
> preferencing actions with respect to the personal characteristics of
> individual people are akin to the preferencing actions that occur in
> the marketplace of goods and services which ultimately determine the
> prices of these products and services and the amounts produced.
> Similarly, such a system operating optimally would, in the marketplace
> of human personal interactions, determine the types and amounts of
> interactions which are conducted between individuals. For more ideas
> on social preferencing and the negatives of anonymity/pseudonymity
> see:http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.htmland linked
> pages.
>
> BTW, there were about 60 people, other then the few renegers, who were
> very happy to send me their full personal identity information, to
> stand behind their commitment and to benefit from the resulting joint
> purchase that such trusting and cooperative behavior made possible.
> That alone was a very pleasing result to me.
>
> I again serve notice to everyone that if you are not willing to put
> your real identity behind everything that you do in your relationship
> with me, then I have no interest in any relationship with you, since I
> cannot trust you to be responsible for your actions. This is the
> reason why, in general, I tend not to reply to posts from people with
> clearly anonymous handles and names, although I sometimes do, as in
> this one.
>
> --Paul Wakfer
>
> MoreLife for the rational -http://morelife.org
> Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
> The Self-Sovereign Individual Project -http://selfsip.org
Paul Antonik Wakfer
this important issue.
Brad Hirshon wrote:
> Hi Paul:
>
> I think we can just agree to disagree.
Please do not presume to think for me. I will think and act according
to my own decisions, not yours.
> I am sure we can go back and
> forth forever. I don't have the time.
>
> My sense is that your posting was intended to be a character attack.
Although the phrase "character attack" is commonly used these days, I
maintain that the juxtaposition of these two words is essentially
meaningless because of a mismatch of word types - the action type is
not applicable to the noun type, particularly not by the means of
action (a message) that was employed. This can be seen quite directly
from the root meanings of the individual words.
character: 2: b: the complex of accustomed mental and moral
characteristics and habitual ethical traits marking a person
9 : reputation especially when good
attack: 1 : the act of falling on with force or violence
Both definitions taken from: Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
Thus, since the noun "character" describes attributes of mind and the
noun "attack" refers to the use of violent force, an attack on the
character of someone is not possible unless that person's brain is
physically assaulted, which particularly cannot be accomplished my
means of a message over the Internet.
Furthermore, apart perhaps from using the word "reneger" (with a
clearly given explanation of the objective evaluation of its
occurrence in this context, making it abundantly clear that its usage
was valid), I simply gave factual information and mentioned some
logical implications of the reneging action. If you, Brad (or anyone),
have some criticism of my statements or logic (eg if you do not agree
that your action had the effect that I attributed to it) then you are
welcome to try to refute any aspect of it. However, since you have not
even attempted to do this, I can only conclude that you have no such
refutation and that you accept my statements of fact and my
conclusions as valid.
> Even if it was not meant to be one, it felt like one. And that's okay.
If you are proud of your action (your text below suggests that you
are), then how can you logically have reacted with any negative
emotion?
> Though I don't think it is the proper thing to do.
By what definition and method of evaluation of "proper" do you think
this?
Obviously I *do* think it was the proper thing to do, or I would not
have done it.
Certainly, in this, you and I do disagree (even though that does not
imply that we agree to disagree).
> I will not say anything negative about you.
By not saying anything specific, but instead making the general
statement that you do next, you are effectively instituting a smear
against my character. However, my total frankness and openness on the
Internet is what makes any such smear attempt impossible to succeed
with rational individuals.
> But I would recommend
> that folks do a simple google search on you and look at how you have
> conducted yourself with others. I believe it will become abundantly
> clear to them why I and others might have been hesitant to become
> involved in a purchasing or business transaction with you.
Since much of my life is an open book available to be inspected on the
Internet, I also strongly urge anyone thinking of beginning a
relationship of any kind with me to do a google search. In fact, that
would greatly help filter out those people with whom I do not wish to
interact, thus saving them the wasted time of being rejected by me
sooner or later (unless they change) and me the time and potential
other value loss of having to find that out later for myself.
I may not be completely proud of everything that I have ever done, but
for those things of which I am not proud, I have frankly admitted my
errors. For all the others, I stand behind each 100% as what I
consider to have been the correct course of action at the time, unless
and until someone logically convinces me that I erred in that action.
That is specifically why, if someone judges any of my actions in a
highly negative light, then it will be best for both of us if we do
not interact (unless such person has a clear interest in helping me to
understand some fundamental reason why my action was in error - which
means that s/he must value me overall since otherwise s/he would not
wish to spend the time). Therefore, if anyone has any questions or
criticisms of any of my actions, then by all means please bring them
forward. Since I am currently convinced that all my actions (except
those with admitted errors) are correct, I would appreciate any
logical discussion that might correct any errors that I have made
which are currently unknown to me. This would also allow me to justify
the particular action which might be helpful to my critics and would
at least enable me to defend my own character against the type of
general negative insinuations (without any specific example) as Brad
has made here.
Once again, this is exactly why Internet privacy and anonymity are so
misplaced and harmful to human cooperative interaction. Just as when
one is seeking to purchase any product or service one needs to find
out as much as possible about it in order to make the best possible
decision (given that the time involved is always limited), so too when
one is seeking to begin an interaction with another human being one
needs to find out as much as possible about the person both in order
to make one's decision to start the interaction and in order to know
how best to conduct the interaction after starting it. I only wish
that more people would begin to understand the logic and value of
this, and would start acting accordingly.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org