Paul's Heart

Confucius Says…

Probably everyone reading this expression, has heard of it at least once in their lifetime.  And while I do not want this post to reflect politics, unfortunately, I have to make the reference and comparison.

In politics, we have what is called a “right wing” or “alt-right”, and we have a “left wing”.  And in between, there is the average right and the average left, and of course, the center.  The three in between at least hear and possibly consider all angles of a conversation before making a decision.  But the extreme positions on the outside, hear only certain details, denying obvious things that would rebut clear falsehoods.  This is the “little knowledge” that I had always heard about.

So, getting away from the politics, how did I finally realize how this works in real life?  A classic example recently occurred here, on “Paul’s Heart”.

The other day, I wrote a tribute to my late brother-in-law, who passed away from Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS).  I wrote about how pumped he would have been if he were still alive to see his favorite football team play, and WIN their first Super Bowl.  And that is where they story should have ended.

Instead, this happened.  And before I explain, I want to qualify something.  My blog is set up to allow comments to be posted on every story.  However, to control “spamming”, I have comments set for me to approve, which after I do determine if “spam” or not, they are published, with one exception.  I have no issue whether a comment is positive or negative in tone.  I have no issue if the comment opposes what I wrote as I believe in the 1st amendment.  But a comment will not get published if it is not factual.

So, I received a comment in my cue, from “Troy”.  And like some others, it was completely inaccurate, and totally missed the point of the post.  In other words, it was meant to attack me as a person and nothing more.  But, the comment is valuable after all because it proves my point and statement above, a little knowledge (or in this case, no knowledge) is a dangerous thing.

Anyhow, “Troy” objected to me writing about Mike.  A little history as I kind of know who “Troy” is, but barely.  I have only met “Troy” twice, and very briefly as “Troy” is a friend of my late brother-in-law’s wife.  “Troy” is one of several who have an opinion on my divorce.  But as the saying goes, “opinions are like assholes, everyone has one”.  As a rule,  I do not discuss issues of my divorce publicly, especially on this blog.  In fact, less than a handful of individuals in my life even know what is happening as I have tried to keep this private.  Here is where the “little knowledge” comes in to play.

“Troy” complained that I had no right to write about my late brother-in-law.  Though the reason given was that I was somehow mean to his family, which could not have been further from the truth as anyone in his family could attest.  Mike was like an older brother to me, a friend to hang out with, and someone to talk to.  So here we have someone, “Troy”, who I have seen only twice briefly, claiming a difficult relationship which not only did not exist, but never witnessed.  And then “Troy” made the pivot… to my divorce.

Again, having only met “Troy” twice before, briefly as in I may have not even said more words than “hello”.  But now “Troy” was going to let me have it about what “Troy” knew and felt about my divorce.  And you notice, just as I mentioned the reference to political beliefs above, I was now seeing it play out on a personal level.  The “little knowledge”.  And I am being honest, I have never even had any conversations about the “why” of the divorce with “Troy”, but from what “Troy” knows, “Troy” feels right and just in letting me have it, even as unfactual as it may have been.

“Troy”, I will respond to your comments anyway.  You have zero, 0, nada, nil, zilch right to ever criticize me as a father.  And you have zero, 0, nada, nil, zilch knowledge of the “why” of the divorce.  So there you have it, “a little knowledge is a terrible thing.”

Again, write your comments as factual and truthful, and no matter how positive or negative towards me, I will publish them.  The problem with the comment by “Troy” is that there was not even one truthful fact.  But here is the truth, “Troy” is not the only one who feels they have a right or stake in my divorce, and yet, are not even a relative at the very least.  And so, like the origin of the opinion, just going to deal with the fart considering where it came from.