October 28, 2011

It could have been avoided.....

July, 2010. In the wee morning hours on Wednesday, Knapp had sent an email calling for an up and down vote on the usage of the terms "spiritual" or "psychological". I'd previously proposed using both, but Knapp adamantly stated, "No." Seeing as there were only three of us voting and two, Lema and Knapp, were clearly in disagreement, I was the tie breaker.

I voted in accordance with Knapp's term, "spiritual."

Knapp and I never had a disagreement. Knapp and Lema had a disagreement.

When Knapp called for this tie-breaking vote via email, Lema did not receive that email. I was not aware at the time that Lema did not receive that email and only discovered it days later and after Lema became upset - seeing that he was not informed a vote was being called for.

Was this intentional on Knapp's part, to not inform Lema that a vote was being called for? At one time I thought it was simply an error on Knapp's part in not clicking "reply all" on the email. Now, over a year later and due to the excessive lying I've discovered Knapp has engaged in, I'm not sure.

After my vote was cast, Lema began directing some of his objection toward me, questioning my motives. After me addressing these objections and insinuations with Lema and after I asked him where his apparent suspicion was coming from, Lema shared that he didn't understand why I had voted when I did. I responded that I had voted because Knapp had called for a vote. Lema asked, "When?" That's when we discovered, on Saturday night, that Lema never received the email Knapp sent on Wednesday calling for a vote. All these email exchanges were also shared with Knapp.

Sometime earlier on Saturday, the conflict between Knapp and Lema seemed to be calming. Knapp  had sent an email that, to me, sounded like the issue of the terms and of the conflict were open for discussion.

So I discussed, via email. Lema discussed, via email. Again, all these emails exchanges were also shared with Knapp. Knapp's only response was to send a lengthy ultimatum email asking for Lema's and my resignation within 24 hours if we couldn't agree to what Knapp stated that we all initially agreed to which Knapp stated was the democratic process. Within that ultimatum email were other insinuations that I had no idea I had engaged in.

I was totally baffled.

After Knapp sent the ultimatum email, I tried to reach him via phone twice, the last time leaving a message that I hoped we could talk and stating how confused I was by his ultimatum email. His response was to not return my phone call. Instead he sent me emails cutting off communication and letting me know just how untrustworthy, non-compassionate, and disrespectful I was.

He signed his final email,"Have a nice life."

****
****

In one of John Knapp's public writings, now accessible only via cache or via a certain ISP address, Knapp states that the three parties (Lema, myself, and John) disagreed over a main issue, that we were passionate about a cause, that tempers got heated, and that we couldn't move beyond the disagreement. He states that he closed down the project we working on because, according to Knapp, we simply couldn't work together and so...he went on to work with others.

That simply isn't the case.

Among other things, there wasn't a main issue that we simply couldn't move beyond. The only reason we couldn't get past it, is because John Knapp demanded an ultimatum and then cut off communication.

As far as a main issue, Knapp and Lema Nal had a disagreement over the words "spiritual" and "psychological." To me, the terminology wasn't that important, which I expressed  in my email exchanges with Knapp and Lema.  My only "passion" at the time, was to have a healthy place to help people exiting high-control groups; terminology was secondary.

The situation, in my opinion, could have been resolved simply, had communication stayed open and respectful.

But communication was terminated, not by Lema or myself, but by John who was unwilling to work to resolve any misunderstanding.

As far as tempers getting heated? Knapp's was the main temper. Lema got heated too. The only time I expressed anger (and that in a tiny dose, in no way "flared") was via email in response to John's ultimatum email. But mainly, I was confused and expressed that, multiple times.

****
****


Below is a rendition of the overview of the conflict that I submitted with my complaint to NY State. Emails are not included.
_____

THE ONLINE CONFLICT BETWEEN JOHN 
& THE OTHER ONLINE BOARD 
CO-ADMINSTRATOR
which took place
July 27 - August 1, 2010
(includes John's ulimatum email) 

[If needed, I can provide all emails for the following overview. Altogether there were 100+(?) email exchanges, within two different email threads. (I have attached {to this overview} two other email threads that are in addition to the 100+(?) emails that I have not included.) I realize this may be too much information; I just wasn't sure what to include and what not to include.]

The three parties involved were John Knapp, myself (Carol Welch), and Borz Lema Nal.

(NOTE: Lema is Chechen and, to my knowledge, has always lived and still resides in Russia. English is not his first language, but he used to work as a translator and his written English is quite fluent.)

This, of course, is my overveiw and is given to the best of my knowledge.

****

Tuesday Evening, 7/27/10: Lema and John began to express disagreement over the usage of the words "spiritual" or "psyhological" to describe the trauma that some people experience after involvement with high control groups. The phrase in which the words were to be used, would appear on the public online discussion board as part of a description for the board. Both Lema and John were passionate about their opinions.

[John owned/owns the online discussion board. Lema, myself, and John were Co-Administrators. The board address was http://www.knappfamilycounseling.com/phpBB3/index.php . The board was separate from (but would be a component of) John's non-profit organization that he was thinking of formulating.]

****

Wednesday, 7/28/2010: Beginning in the wee morning hours, the disagreement between John and Lema became heated. In one of the emails, in the wee morning hours, John called for an up and down vote regarding which word ("spiritual" or "psychological") to use in the phrase. I voted in agreement with John.

[NOTE: It was discovered around 9:45 PM on Saturday night (almost 4 days later), that Lema never received the email that John had sent Wednesday around 4:00 AM which called for the up and down vote. Thus Lema thought (up until Saturday night when we discovered the error) that John and I had gone behind Lema's back to make a decision.

It was later discovered that Lema never received a second email that John sent around that same time.

In typing up this overview, I just found another email that Lema never received, from that same time frame.
Apparently, with the 3 emails that Lema never received, John didn't click "reply all" when he sent them. An easy error for anyone to make. In my opinion, the emails Lema never received were an important factor that contributed to some of Lema's accusations and insinuations directed at John and myself in the conflict.]
*************************************

Wednesday (later), 7/28/2010: John contacts me via video Skype and discusses his exasperation with the circumstances regarding the conflict with Lema. I agree with him, that Lema is being adamant and hard to get along with. John stated that John felt that Lema was lecturing him. I made no comment to John's perception of this, though I didn't think Lema was "lecturing him." In hindsight, I should have stated my opinion.

John also stated that Lema was providing no evidence to back up Lema's opinion. I asked John if he had looked at the links Lema had provided in his argument for his opinion. John had not; so he then looked at (at least) one of the links and stated it was still just opinion, not evidence. My thought was, "Well isn't your viewpoint just opinion too?" Again I did not express this to John, and in hindsight I think I should have. I felt at the time John needed to simply vent so I mainly listened to what John had to say.

By the end of the Skype conversation, John seemed distressed and stated he needed to find someone to talk to (obviously other than me) about the situation. He mentioned [certain person] might be someone he could speak with.

****

Thursday, 7/29/2010: The three of us (John, Lema, and myself) meet on voice Skype for our weekly prescheduled conference call. As Creative Director, I was the one to oversee these calls. After 1/2 hour of business talk about the online board, Lema and John begin to discuss their disagreement, but John had to leave in 1/2 hour due to work so that conversation never got finished. (NOTE: Lema's spoken English is not as fluent as his written English, so spoken communication is a bit more difficult.)

****

Thursday (later), 7/29/2010: Lema started another email thread addressed mainly toward me with insinuations and accusations regarding my vote where I had voted for John's word proposal, questioning my reasons and motives behind my vote. I addressed these with Lema through Saturday evening.
(It was Saturday night during my back and forth emails with Lema, when we discovered Lema had never received the one email from John calling for the up and down vote.)

****

Friday, 7/30/2010: John called me on the telephone and stated that now Lema was referring to John or at least comparing him with a cult leader. (I had not been keeping up with all the emails, due to my work load and some family illness so had not read those emails yet.)

John also shared some other information in regard to a phone call he received that day or the day before, from a therapist in California. John felt the therapist was fishing John for information regarding dual relationships with clients and regarding the non-profit organization John was thinking of formulating. (I can share more of this if needed.)

John again stated he needed to talk to someone (obviously other than me) about all this. He also stated the verbal attacks from Lema had to stop within the next 24 hours. The dialog with Lema was (of course) wearing John down. I agreed that Lema was being accusatory toward both John and myself.

****

Saturday (morning), 7/31/2010: It wasn't until Saturday morning that I was able to catch up on John's and Lema's email exchanges. They had become quite heated, from both sides. At that point, I responded via email suggesting that maybe they should give it a rest. John had mentioned this previously, but still they had continued to go back and forth as Lema had continued to bring things up.

****

Saturday (afternoon), 7/31/2010: John sent an email which sounded to me like things were calming down between he and Lema and like John had brought how to word the phrase (the initial disagreement) back up for discussion.

[That email thread is attached and is labeled with a cover sheet, "Conflict: Back on the table for discussion, 7/31/2010." Please note the times on the responses, in light of not discvoering until Saturday night that Lema had never received John's email (from Wedsnesday) calling for an an up and down vote.]

****

Saturday (night), 7/31/2010: As stated previously, it is discovered that Lema never received John's Wednesday email calling for an up and down vote which (imo) was part of the reason for Lema's accusatory statements toward myself and John as Lema had thought John and I had gone behind his back to make a decision.

****

Sunday, 8/01/2010: John sent (what I refer to as) an ultimatum email, asking for a resignation decision within 24 hours from both Lema and I if, since according to John's perception, Lema and I could not agree with the democratic process (ie: voting).

I was totally confused by this email (especially in light of John's previous email in which it sounded that the discussion was back on the table) and was taken aback by some of the things John accused, inferred, and/or insinuated. I expressed my confusion and surprise in my response to the 'ultimatum' email.

[That email thread is attached and is labeled with a cover sheet, "Conflict: Ultimatum email, 8/01/2010." ]

________________________________

6 comments:

oneperson said...

This morning I was again reading a blog piece I ran across in the past week or so:
Prowling the Internet: The Cyberpath


Posted below are some excerpts from that blog piece that I find, hmm... almost uncanny, in light of events in my own life, especially the past 1-1/2 years.

Could it be? Some say that if it walks like duck, it is a duck. Often true; sometimes not.

*******************
(Italics mine)

"The cyberpath tends to find someone that gratifies his need to feed his narcissistic desire for attention – whether with intrigue, argument, conflict or adoration and love. He may flit from one victim to another quite quickly, or may stay with a single victim for an extended period, depending on how long the victim continues to feed this endless need.

Dominance and power form recurrent themes in the social relations of psychopathic personalities. The cyberpath constantly seeks to dominate and control others. This takes a variety of forms:

*in arguments and debates, he constantly needs to have the last word;
*he attempts to silence others and close discussion with his point of view;
*he will resort to insults and attacks in order to retain dominance;
*if he seems to be losing his dominant position in an argument, he will abandon it, forget it and later deny it rather than face any sort of compromise of his dominance.

In his personal relationships, his bids for adulation and devotion will take on more subtle forms:

*he will go to great lengths to elicit love and devotion from others;
*he is only interested in the thrill of achieving or winning this, and once the relationship gets past its initial excitement phase, his boredom and need for further validation will lead him to seek out further victims;
*he is highly adept at lying, and even as his lies get discovered, he will refashion his story to make himself appear credible, often using the stance of humility and remorse to get himself out of a corner. Gradually he will have to set up new online profiles and sites in order to clear away any previous evidence of his track record repeating itself."

*******************

And the following from the same blog piece, especially points three and eight which I have bolded:

*******************
"If you have been in a relationship with a psychopathic personality
*get as far away from them as you can, as quickly as possible
*don’t bother trying to communicate with them about the relationship – they will be unable to enter into a meaningful dialogue
*if you seek to expose them, bear in mind they are likely to respond with vitriolic rage, threats, vicious and hurtful communication, or attempts to discredit you and smear your reputation
*resign yourself to the fact that you are unlikely to retrieve *anything from them unless you are fortunate enough to have a legally binding contract from before they turned cold on you
*don’t beat yourself up about not recognising the signs earlier; just act as soon as you do
*seek therapy as soon as possible; the trauma of these encounters can be long-lasting and profound
*if possible, warn others of your experience
*bear in mind he will be doing his best to cast you as irrational or downright crazy, so it might not be possible or worthwhile to warn his friends or his most recent victim
*tempting as it is to try get him to hear your point of view, cut your losses and keep away from any further contact."

Jon said...

I'm always wary of group email 'discussions'. As you mention, if some of these conversations had been held over coffee together, instead of through 'reply-all' emails (which in this instance led to 'reply' not to all) a lot of these problems could have been avoided. I think that the more real-world contact (hearing voice intonation, facial expressions), the better chance that we'll be sensitive to one another's feelings when disagreements (inevitably) arise.

What an unfortunate situation you described!

oneperson said...

Thanks Jon....

Yes, it ended up very unfortunate.

I still shake my head in disbelief of what has transpired as a result. I never imagined that something so small (the choice between two different words) would end up where it has....a huge mess with people hurt by the scattered debris.

It was so avoidable, so avoidable...

Thanks again.

oneperson said...

PS: If interested, below are a few snapshot links about the mess. There are more snapshot links on the blog...but no one wants to ferret through all that.

Some (much?) of the story is not linked because it hasn't been made public. Kind of reminds me of the tip of the iceberg saying.

I don't expect anyone to read all (or any) of this jibberish. And of course, this is all from my perspective.

Repercussions


Audience Voices


Out of Hiding: 'Why shouldn't I hire John M. Knapp, LMSW?'


John M. Knapp, LMSW: Endorsements Retraction


Complaint Overview

My statements addressing John M. Knapp's allegations & accusations

April Galamin said...

Thanks for the addendum "cyberpath" information...all I can say is WOW.

Seen it.
Been there.
Lived it.

I cut my losses...but I feel bad for others who the leader has under his thumb. Oh well, I'm trying to make up for lost time that was stolen from the cult/leader.

It is fascinating how the MO's are so similar in regards to controllers.

Take Care my friend. :)
xxoo

oneperson said...

You're welcome. ;)

Thank you!

xoxo