Monday, November 1, 2010


In hindsight, after re-reading the "OPEN LETTER", it seems to me to be a mistake. There is just not enough subtext that occurred due to a sensation of treading to fine a line between absolute honesty and my inherent sense of personal privacy. In fact, if I were Peter I'd have been totally put off by it in general.
I am not confessional by nature, and I can never seem to fine the proper line and tend to err on the side of caution. Perhaps things like this, speaking only for myself, should be left on the cutting room floor.
It essentially lacked good manners.
My apologies to Peter.

Look for another post in the "Pearls" series shortly. I can always count on metaphor.

Blessings of Peace,



Sarah said...

Hmm. It's an admirable trait, in this day and age, to be non-confessional, because it seems to have become the "norm" to blabber everything about oneself to the general public, whether or not one was asked to do so. I am not immune to this phenomenon; I, too, have regretted blog posts that were perhaps too personal in nature for even my small group of friends.

I am younger and not even nearly as experienced as you in the great scope of Life In General, and therefore I hope that you will not be offended when I express this opinion: sometimes a brazen gesture will be well-received and not perceived as rudeness, especially if the intended recipient is probably used to that sort of thing. I would daresay that Peter Murphy has had numerous messages that weren't even half as eloquent as yours.

I kindly put forth that I see no reason for regret or chagrin.

Michael Zulli said...

Ah, Sarah, thanks.