From: Bruce Baugh <bruceab@teleport.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 03:57:56 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Unintended Consequences of Suppression
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960129042557.0069b468@mail.teleport.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:52 PM 1/28/96 -0600, Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com> wrote:
>>     You just don't get it, do you?  Do-gooders like the Wiesenthalistas 
>> don't need to be *right*; they need *a steady stream of cash contributions*
>
>It's usually more effective to point out why what someone is saying is
>wrong rather than to speculate as to what their motives for saying it
>might be.

Particularly in cases where, rightly or wrongly, the folks being subjected
to ad hominem have a very favorable public image.

Explanations that give credit for good intentions and show how the present
action works to undermine them, and which include constructive alternatives,
are a _lot_ more likely to be listened to.

At least that's the way it works for me. And it works for pretty much
everyone I know. If there's anyone here who's more impressed by ad hominem,
I'd be curious, but they'd still be in the minority.

Bruce Baugh
bruceab@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab