On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Dressler wrote:
>Chau Nguyen wrote in Statement LO12858: It (personal mission statement)
>is "to be a good person".
>"Be a good person" is what most people think they are (including the
>greatest criminals). If things turn out to be different of what was
>intended in the beginning they will find somewhere a guilty party. It is
>easier to cope with guilt when you haven't learnt about system thinking -
>it is easier to overlook your own part in the game.
Did anywhere in my message state that I AM A GOOD PERSON? Rather, it
stated that my INTENTION is to be a good person. You are making
assumption here, big time. The tone of this paragraph offended my being.
>I think it was John Updike who said something like: "Once you have
>established within yourself that you are innocent, you get away with
>Sorry to say, Chau, but your statement seems to be not complex enough.
>May I have your definition of "good" (I don't need quantity, qualitative
>statement is fine)?
Oh Winfried, where should I start here? First, sorry it takes this long
to reply. I was out of town, and did not have access to my email.
Second, i wish that i could read your message in the context of an inquiry
rather than an interrogation, third why does my PERSONAL statement has to
be complex? fouth, complex to what/whom standards? fifth, why is "being
a good person" not complex enough? because it does not have many words?
why can't complexity been in the thoughts instead of the words? sixth,
after all, it is MY Personal Mission Statement, who gives anyone the right
to dissect it? if anyone wants to teach me something, there are other
ways to do so, seventh, now that you know how i feel about this, if you
still want to hear MY deffinition of "being a good person", do let me
phuoc-chau nguyen email@example.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>