These are just my personal observations, take them any way that you want. I freely admit that I yanked a lot of chains, there was a very specific reason for it, and here it is.
Let?s step back and take a look at a few things here. Here are a few questions that I think everyone needs to look at.
1. What is the purpose of this board? Is it supposed to be a place to gather actionable intelligence, and share personal experiences of being at HLA, or is it just a place to bash the school and feed trolls with personal attacks?
My opinion is that it?s purpose is to be a source of actionable intelligence. Unfortunately the board seems to be going in the opposite direction. Let?s look at the whole Aften thread, here was a student that had the inside track with some staff, is it possible that she may have had some solid intelligence, perhaps not fully actionable, but solid background. How was she treated, how quickly did I turn to nothing but personal attacks going both ways?
2. How are people perceived on the board?
There are many answers to this one, as many as there are people who read this board. I think that there are a lot of highly intelligent and passionate people on this board. People who want to make things happen and to achieve their personal agenda. The problem that I see is that people get blinded by their passion and end up in pissing contests with trolls. It?s scary to see how quickly people will jump to personal attacks and to lose focus. Missing opportunities to cultivate sources and lose out on very valuable intelligence. I?ll admit that I pulled a lot of chains, to see what would happen, I?m saddened to see the results. Think back to being in Reals, how would you react when you got instigated by the counselors. I would hazard a guess that it would look similar to what has been posted on the board. It?s sad to see one line that has so much to say and is well thought out and presented intelligently and logically, only to be lost by the next sentence which is a personal attack.
3. What tactics are being used?
From my perspective, the same ineffective ones that were used at the school. When group A uses ineffective tactic to influence group B, then group B uses the same tactics back on group A, to counter act group A, how effective is it? It?s not, it creates a stalemate. One side or the other has to change tactics in order to move forward. A historical example of this is Mutual Assured Destruction ( MAD) from the cold war. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact had enough weapons to destroy the world several times over. It was a classic stalemate, neither side had an advantage with the weapons at hand. How did NATO gain the upper hand? They gained it by changing tactics from a military standpoint to an economic one. They spent the Warsaw Pact to death. ( I know this is an over simplified example of the cold war, but I figured that my 300 page War College paper would be over kill on this point). The point is that it seems that people are using the same ?instigate- react-instigate? tactics that were used at the school. Which is probably what they would like, keep everyone outside going around in the vicious cycle. It is so sad to see people who are very capable of making a difference and creating change, get caught in the trap of ?using their own arguments against them?.
Anyone who knows me would probably tell you that I am very focused and deliberate in my approach to things, although at time it may seem very unorthodox. It is due to the nature of my training, long before I was at HLA. Like all of you , I too have an agenda, what it is not really of any consequence to most people. Those that know me, already know it. I?ll pass on a few concepts to you all, do what you will with them. Adopt, modify, or ignore them if you wish.
How to engage.
1. If the Enemy advances, retreat
2. If the enemy halts, harass him
3. If the enemy avoids battle, attack him
4 If the enemy retreats, follow him
How to act
1. Be polite to people
2. Be fair in all dealings
3. Return everything borrowed
4. Pay for everything damaged
5. Do not bully people
