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