Firstly - yes this is me responding.
KZ is me.
Now, someone asks:
P.S. - what does this all have to do with the Source magazine??
Not a thing. I was just answering a Q.
It seems to be thought that my opinion about the sorce is irrelevant b/c some folks doubt my credibility.
What one has to do with the other, I don't know; as it doesn?t seem likely I or anyone would lie concerning what they think about the sorce.
And anon states: if one person says you're not credible, that's not really important, but if several say you are, it's time to really take a look at that.
I know I am credible. I know I take pains not to exaggerate or drop data. I know when I have misunderstood something and so made incorrect statements - I am careful to say so and explain the misunderstanding.
No way can others know this with the level of certainty I have. When people who know nothing about me what so ever, get on public boards and proclaim me not credible - I would say they are speaking out of their ignorance, and so not worth my, or anyone's, consideration.
Some, who don't understand the history, or relationships involved, might believe what is said - but again, they are basing their opinion on faulty information. Consider the source, as they say.
You infer that many have cast doubt on my honesty and or credibility; I would point out, who these people are is in question, as most are anons, And so any number of them may be the same person. Even those who give names may be any one or all of the anons - its impossible to say. So, I tend to not be very concerned about the need to take a look at anything they judge me on.
And an anon says: If you're Karen Z, aren't you the one that thinks that sharing a painful experience is bad?
I am KarenZ - but no - I never said that. Go back and read carefully the post were you got this misimpression
