Communication Glitches

I received this as a comment  from Stan Russell, of Santa Cruz, the webmaster of the Big Sur Chamber of Commerce, on my “Big Sur Mile Marker” post, regarding my post on the information re the Road Closure:

“I passed on the information as it was delivered to me by Susana Cruz at Caltrans. The message was the road was closed. You got the message. You can nitpick about what mile marker if that suits you.  I had to wake up to answer the phone and move the information through. You should at least be thankful rather than condescending towards me.”

First, I am very thankful for your efforts, Stan. I really did not think I was condescending. I just realized, that if I’d gotten the message that it was closed on the south, at “Rocky Creek” I would have questioned the accuracy. You don’t know any better, as you have not lived on the South Coast. So, to you Stan, I say, both privately in an email and here publicly, as that is where you posted your comment:

“Stan, you think my post was condescending? I strive for ACCURACY. I wrote you about the error, and your response was, “Oh, well. The road is closed in any event.” Maybe for you guys on the North Coast, “the road is closed, in any event” is sufficient, but for us on the South Coast, we need to know — can we get to Lucia? Can we get to Gorda? Can we get to N-F Rd? The devil is in the details, and it is tough to get them right, I know. Lord knows, I have not always gotten them right, but I try. And when I fail, I apologize. We are not perfect. We are only as good as our sources, and sometimes they are wrong. We need to check them out, verify, and correct if the information is incorrect. I told you your source was wrong, in a private email, and your response was “oh well. The road is still closed.” Well, that doesn’t cut it, from my perspective.

If you insist on reporting inaccurate information, regardless of the source, then you have to accept responsibility for  that. But your readers deserve to know you don’t check out your information, and in fact, when provided with additional, more accurate information, you don’t correct the original misinformation, but instead tell me, “oh, well.”   

You know “oh, well” doesn’t work down here, and shouldn’t any where else. We need ACCURATE information, and if you pass on inaccurate information, through NO fault of your own, and cannot get behind that fact, whatever the source, that is your problem, not mine. I strive for accurate. I make mistakes, or get inaccurate information, but then, I admit it, correct it, apologize, and strive to do better. You, on the other hand, chose ignore my correction, and to post on my blog that I was “nitpicking” and “condescending.” Nitpicking, yes. I want it accurate.
Condescedning? I did not think my commet was condescending, and I certainly did not mean it that way. I apologize if that is how you perceived it. I am just into ACCURATE. Anyone who is not, I am going to call on it. And if I am not accurate, I welcome corrections. It is not about ego, it is about sharing information that is helpful. If it is not accurate, it is not helpful. 
So, Stan, what can I say? I make mistakes, my sources make mistakes. It happens. I did not mean to be “condescending,” I only meant to provide additional resources to those who care about the details. If you don’t want the phone calls, then refer them to me. I don’t mind.
I hope we can continue to work together to provide information to the coast, accurate information, which helps the South Coast, as well as the North Coast. The details matter to us, down here.”