About Extraordinary Accounts – 2017

It’s my fortune to receive a steady flow of email, from sharp and interesting people.  It’s better to read than to write, and those who write to me give me more than I have given, or could give, them.  (Some readers, in fact, prefer email, and that’s why there’s more than one way to contact me.)

In the email that I receive (and occasional comments that I do not post), sometimes comes an extraordinary account.  Now, I am not the oldest man in Whitewater, but I am well past being the youngest, so extraordinary accounts are less surprising to me than they once were.

It’s enough to say that I hear and read more than I write.  Sometimes that’s because a contention about public policy – no matter how serious the contention – lacks adequate confirmation for immediate publication.  Perhaps information that confirms or refutes an account will come to light, making an initially unripe claim ready for posting.  Perhaps, instead, that information will never come, and a contention remains forever unripe.

The social obligation of blogging – and the exercise of a free person’s right in this country – requires some patience and some diligence.  One sometimes waits for more information, and other times researches from the many documents, studies, and statements available to learn more about an account, especially a serious one.

And yet, and yet, although one writes less than one reads, so also one observes and researches more than one writes.

There’s no need to follow the practice of so many town squires of our small but beautiful city, who rush to crow over their unconvincing, self-serving claims.

One can afford to be deliberate and methodical.  Those who have expressed freely their confidence by sharing difficult, extraordinary accounts (thank you, truly) will best be respected through a careful, diligent consideration of those accounts.

Related posts:

Leave a Reply