Gentlemen,
SInce this seems to be an issue dear to both of your hearts, and
sometheing you feel you must thrash out between you, could you please
take it private? I, and I'm sure others, have enjoyed the technical
knowledge you both often shre with the list, but this continued
bickering about political beleifs is eventually going to get me to
relegate everything you two send to the discard pile, and I'd hate to
have to do that...
Please let it go, no one wins political arguments, for tha vast majority
of us our political beliefs are pretty set.
Greg
Trevor Boicey wrote:
> pat bailey wrote:
> > We won a small victory with SB42 but they do have plans
> >
> > We have to become as active as the "tree huggers" Let them know
>
> "We"? "Them"?
>
> Constructively, I think the first step is to stop
> the "we" vs "them" mentality. The concept that we
> are one group of people who are good, and they are
> some mythical group of people who are bad.
>
> Most people make rational decisions. It's only
> their perspective that is different from ours, which
> makes their decisions different than ours.
>
> As long as we amplify the difference between "us
> the good" and "them the evil", it makes it unlikely
> that they will ever agree with us.
>
> It's hard to influence someone after you
> draw a line in the sand and say "this is what *WE*
> stand for that *YOU* don't".
>
> It's a lot easier to side with someone and steer
> them. Take "them" for a ride in your cars, make them
> like it as much as you do. Then their decisions will
> follow yours.
>
> I feel if the car groups get angry and militant
> as some suggest, it only serves to remind "them"
> how much they don't agree with "us".
>
> Soft persuasion and careful politicking will
> accomplish infinitely more than any loud angry tirade.
>
> --
> Trevor Boicey
> Ottawa, Canada
> tboicey@brit.ca
> http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
|