ESSAY: ‘Caveat lector’… Let the Reader Beware, Part One

Disclaimer: The opinions and experiences expressed within the following article are solely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the standards or viewpoints of this platform or any of its affiliate contributors. The information contained in the article is provided on an “as is” basis with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness, or timeliness.

Ok. I have to confess. I wrote that disclaimer, not Bill Hudson, editor and publisher of the Pagosa Daily Post. He probably thinks you already know that. But some people may not.

Apparently, the article I wrote a few weeks ago about a proposed private heliport/helipad project (ESSAY: Issues Hover Around Proposed Terry Robinson Road Helipad, Part One), hit a nerve… and it wasn’t the funny bone.

In a Facebook thread, a person who disagreed with the contents of the article wrote, “It’s not a great article; it’s filled with misinformation and outright untruths. It’s sad that this paper and Joe Yocklavich [sic] would push a personal agenda with greatly exaggerated info, and also several completely untrue statements.” The comments came from someone close to Baudouin d’Aumeries, so his response was understandable, if not expected.

But let’s just say that I do value authenticity, truthfulness and accuracy, even though I never attempted to pose as an investigative journalist who was presenting an incriminating exposé. I’m really no more than an interested, perhaps concerned member of the Pagosa Springs community who may care how this issue is resolved. Maybe I’m a lot like you, but I just might have more time on my hands to be able to write about it.

So here I am again — communicating my POV with the tag this time of ‘caveat lector’. Really, you have to make up your own mind about which side is right or wrong. If you want to, do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

But still, what he said bugged me. Others can easily shrug the criticism off, but not me. Was I really only listening to one side, taking in what they were telling me as absolute truth, letting their passion about the issue influence my own stand?

Well… yes.

It didn’t take much more than a nudge for me to see, and identify with, their position. That makes me biased. That’s my right — as it is yours.

Yet, as I said before, this whole issue has all the makings of a really good story, and I do love a good story.

And I think all really good stories aren’t exactly obvious or predictable. The good guys and the bad guys aren’t all cliches. There are no superheroes or villains here. All the issues probably haven’t been fully revealed nor adequately understood. And, sadly, there probably won’t be a “happily ever after” ending… at least not for everyone. That’s life.

For me, though, understanding the “other side” was important. I still had questions about why d’Aumeries even entertained the idea of building a heliport or a helipad on his property in direct conflict with the strenuous objections of his neighbors and probably the whole community at large. (I will share come of those comments tomorrow…) He must have some compelling reasons other than to satisfy an egoistic desire for convenience or an overarching perception of his own self-importance.

I mean, in the best stories even the worst villains have plausible motives.

So it was time to find out.

I reached out to the person who complained about my article, with an offer to contact me if he wanted me to delve into whatever information he provided. He took me up on my offer. He asked if I would be willing to sit down and listen to an “alternative viewpoint”. Of course, I responded, with just one condition — that d’Aumeries be present at that meeting. I really wanted the opportunity to question the man at the center of the controversy myself.

Not long after, I got an email from Baudouin himself.

The re: of the email was: “Thank you for trying to spell my First name right.”

Oh, that’s promising. Perhaps reaching out to your supposed adversary with a compliment would help set the stage. After all, I did try, and I was secretly happy and relieved that I didn’t have to pronounce his first or last name out loud in public.  Very few people know how to pronounce my last name either, let alone spell it.  So, commending me for trying to be accurate on something that wasn’t obvious was a good strategy.

But then I read the first sentence of the email…

“You still need some effort for my last name.”

Yikes. I spelled his last name incorrectly. How amateur and totally embarrassing. I just lost all credibility, even with myself. I looked up his last name in various places on the internet. (Places that you would guess would have it spelled correctly.)

Sure enough. I did have it wrong. In the article, I had D’Aumeries instead of d’Aumeries.

Let it be known that I don’t let inaccuracies stand. I contacted editor Bill Hudson, who made the correction on the posted article.

But… did Mr.  d’Aumeries want to meet up? I was unsure if he did or did not. So I asked: “From your response, I’m not sure if you are interested in sitting down to answer some of the questions a person like me, who is just representing herself as a concerned member of this community, would like to ask. Do you want to do that? The invitation is still open.”

And his reply:

“Thank you for your reply. The project is fully disclosed in the minutes of the Archuleta session building division of July 26th, feel free to listen and look. I’m the first one to speak :-)
You may learn a lot about this project. Best regards.”

It took a bit to actually find a recording of that meeting, and after requesting his assistance, Baudouin himself provided this link to the Zoom recording.

Now you too have the link to understand d’Aumeries motives. I feel vindicated and exonerated because I am providing “their side of the story.” Right?

Full disclosure. I have not yet viewed the 2hr42min recording. I’m hoping that he indeed is the first one to speak and that I don’t have to listen to the whole damn thing. Good stories always skip to the good parts.

So, soon enough, I’m going to pour a full glass of a fine Merlot (of course the boxed variety), and I’m going to sit down with a pad of paper and pen in order to capture my thoughts. I fully intend to listen. But I’m in the same position as you are… I still won’t be able to ask the questions directly and find out for myself.

Of course, my invitation to meet with Baudouin is still on the table. Maybe it’s not worth his time.

For now, I’ll listen. And maybe learn. And possibly share… my POV. Just remember, caveat lector! Let the reader beware.

You have been warned!

Read Part Two…