Talking to inanimate objects

I have come under criticism (actually denunciation is more like it) from several private investigators because of my blog of July 23, 2010 entitled NCISS vs ISPLA.  Most vociferous is CALI Vice President for Administration Ed Saucerman who accuses me of making a personal attack apparently because I identified him in that blog as being a supporter of CALI funding for ISPLA and for a decrease in our funding of NCISS.

Well, I don’t understand why that constitutes a personal attack.  Ed Saucerman does support CALI funding for ISPLA and does call for a decrease in funding for NCISS.  He’s made motions to that effect in the CALI Board of Directors.  Perhaps he just didn’t want other CALI members or the world at large to know that he had taken these positions.

But, there is history to this whole debate.  To understand it in context, first you need to read a number of my prior blog postings:

7/23/10 NCISS vs ISPLA

2/5/10 How to talk stupid & influence people (negatively)

9/20/09 Who’s who of PI MCE Supporters

9/16/09 Eyewitness ID

9/16/09 Literacy as a requirement for licensing

9/13/09 Why PI’s need MCE

9/8/09 Stupid, stupit, or stupiter?

9/8/09 First Amendment Rights & Non-Rights

After you’ve read these postings, you get a better idea of what’s going on behind the scenes in the PI world.  It’s also important to know just how inexplicable Ed Saucerman’s positions have been in light of the following events:  (1)  Ed Saucerman and others, including Rick Von Geldern, came up with this line of attack against me claiming that I’m anti-law enforcement and publicly bandied it about so much that I had something like 250 website hits in two days; (2) next, Ed Saucerman asked me for my endorsement of his race for Vice President of Administration for CALI and I turned him down (when I was board chair I never endorsed anybody in any CALI election); (3) when I turned Ed down for endorsement I asked him why on Earth he would want my endorsement since he was publicly on record as denouncing me for purportedly being anti-law enforcement (I suggest here and now that Ed should leave a comment on this blog to explain why he wanted my endorsement, because what he told me at the time was incomprehensible and I don’t want to characterize it as I would be accused of making a “straw man argument”); (4) now Ed’s back to his accusations that I am anti-law enforcement.

I feel sometimes that when I’m trying to promote legitimate, reasonable discussions with people about the policy issues that pervade the world of private investigator organizations that I’m talking to inanimate objects, like brick walls.  It’s often pointless to engage in these discussions with some people because you can’t win.  They’re either not hearing you or else they’re really not interested in having a reasonable give and take discussion.

With Ed Saucerman in particular, I can sort of understand why now because I googled him and found the following link:

http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1997/11/23/880262775.html

That story speaks for itself and hopefully, it won’t speak to inanimate objects, just to human beings who can read and understand and ask appropriate questions.