[Semi-OT] "Name calling"

William M. Klein wrote:
> Not that I  really think that it will do much good, but before we
> "turn off" many more people (as we did last time) when we tried to
> deal with post that lead to "naming calling" and other
> unpleasantries, let me explain what as I see as the problem.
>
> Generalizations that are NOT qualified often end up as useless
> (fruitless) diatribes back and forth.

[...]

Further, there's the attempt to attack the messenger. For example:

Yesterday I posted a note (on another group obviously) regarding the trial
(due to start Monday) of two Green Peace activists under the charge of
"Sailor Mongering and conspiracy to commit a felony."* What piqued my
interest was "Sailor Mongering" law. The 1872 statute was designed to outlaw
tavern keepers from boarding inbound ships with booze and prostitutes in an
attempt to lure the crew to a particular establishment when the ship docked.
In 132 years the law has been used twice.

I offered no opinion on the facts, save I thought all the lawyers involved
would be having some measure of fun dealing with something so weird. I did
say I was disappointed that I could not look forward to a genuine mahogany
Elvis key-fob.

Well! I got accused of being a Nazi, brown-nosing John Ashcroft, raping the
planet, a tool of big business, anti-civil rights(?), and more.

No matter. As it turns out, the defense lawyers are raising the same points
in the trial, following the legal dictum: "If you can't attack the facts,
attack the law. If that doesn't work, attack the prosecution. If that
doesn't work either, claim racism."

In my view, attacking the messenger means the attacker cannot refute the
message.

---------


*Facts:
In 1992, a group of Green Peace activists boarded the ship "Jade" loaded
with contraband mahogany from Brazil as the ship approached the port of
Miami. These boarders did the regular Green Peace things: made
announcements, unfurled banners, etc. The Coast Guard dutifully took them
into custody, held them for the w-end, and released them under bond.
Subsequently ten of the group pled guilty and were sentenced to time served
(the w-end).

Fifteen months later, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida
charged the two remaining defendants as above.

What makes this prosecution so important is the subsidary charge of
"conspiracy to commit a felony." If the two principals are convicted on this
count - as representatives of the organization -  Green Peace can have its
tax-exempt status revoked!

In article <EfSdnczq7YrG7DrdRVn-ug@giganews.com>,
JerryMouse <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:

[snip]

>No matter. As it turns out, the defense lawyers are raising the same points
>in the trial, following the legal dictum: "If you can't attack the facts,
>attack the law. If that doesn't work, attack the prosecution. If that
>doesn't work either, claim racism."

This seems to be a variant of 'If the facts are in your favor then pound
on the facts, if the law is in your favor then pound on the law, if
neither is in your favor then pound on the table.'

DD