America's Great Gun Game--what to take away

[Robert Hairless]

Hasn't anyone else realized yet that Earl E. McDowell's book is self-published?

Its publisher is Iuniverse.com, a company that is in the business of producing and distributing books that their authors pay them to bring into the world. Such a company is sometimes called a "vanity press."

Here's a link to Iuniverse.com in case you want to pay to have your own work appear in print.

And here's a link to Earl E. McDowell's page on the University of Minnesota web site, where you can read his credentials, background, and experience in teaching and research. Judge for yourself his qualifications to be given a moment's attention as a distinguished scholar for a work he subtitled "An Outline of the Need for Increased Federal Legislation." See if you can find his background in firearms, safety, politics, law, government, history, or federal legislation--any subject related to the book he published.

Why is anyone surprised that Professor McDowell did not hold up his end in what was supposed to have been a debate?

 

[Dr. Dickie]

As others have said.
It really WAS monstrously informative.
Over 30 years and the anti-gun crowd still has no rational, demonstrative argument or position. They are pseudo-intellectual, simple-minded socialists who believe they can run your life better than you can--end of argument on their part.
You cannot debate something with someone who has no rational basis for their belief.

 

[alucard0822]

Ieyasu:

please, please, tell us where you contracted the notion that the professor who posted here is "one of the most notable of the scholars and authors positioned against gun rights."

because the good doctor and Danus told us so , I appolagise for neglecting to turn off my sarcasm completely. (should have put this little guy in there to clarify)

 

[Baba Louie]

OK. I've got to chime in one more time here. Whenever I post, I take the time to proof it three times and "Preview Post" before I hit "submit" to correct my spelling at least (I'm no speed typist). (Also to tone down my snarkieness)

So please forgive the following snark (or take it for what it is worth)

I absolutely could not believe the number of misspelled words (more than one) posted by a man learned and titled with a PhD. Perhaps I'm too fussy about that point. Probably. Certainly. But if someone is an educator by profession, for some strange reason, I expect their spelling, at the very least, to be exact. I tend to think "sloppy work old boy", and wonder if that trait runs true to other facets in their communication skills.

I apologize if that peeve of mine is personal or offensive to anyone who reads this as I am no spell checking police enforcement officer, simply an observer. I might even agree at times with Andrew Jackson's quote

It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word.

based on the writer's education level. It simply lessens the impact of the message in my mind. (there's that closed mind again Baba)

Back to AGGG

Women, however, should know that that guns should be feared more than intruders and that a gun in the home increases the danger to women and children. WAGV reports several important facts. Among them: ...having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that a family member will be killed by a gun. [snip] The organization suggests that parents should make sure that their children understand that "guns are real and kill people." [snip] The organization stresses listening to your children and explaining to them the consequences of being around guns.

Fair enough to a point.

Guns are real. Granted. Guns are real and kill people. Point of discussion could be in order here. But there was none. Guns, like sticks and stones, can be used by one human to harm or kill another human. Or, Guns, like other tools, can be used to offend or used to defend. Guns, like kitchen knives, require some training and careful use, and should be put away from those not trained or able to discern right from wrong.

(OK. Thrice checked, most spelling fixed. Snarkieness toned waaaaaay down. Is it snark ie ness or snark y ness?)

 

[Art Eatman]

If the good professor's book has anything in common with his few comments here, I'm afraid that his research was not a widespread exploration of the subject. He seems to have stayed with sources which supported a pre-existing opinion. My view is that like all too many students, "He didn't do his homework."

Lemme say this about that: Had this been a doctoral dissertation, he'd not have wanted me on the review board.

Art

 

[Ieyasu]

Ieyasu:

Quote:
please, please, tell us where you contracted the notion that the professor who posted here is "one of the most notable of the scholars and authors positioned against gun rights."


because the good doctor and Danus told us so , I appolagise for neglecting to turn off my sarcasm completely. (should have put this little guy in there to clarify)

That's a relief! Thanks for clarifying.

I usually catch even the slightest hint of sarcasm however the way it was written, I took it straight, since this followed in the same sentence: "could not defend his position in the face of overwhelming logical rebuttal by people from all walks of life speaks volumes of THR and it's members."

 

[Ieyasu]

Hasn't anyone else realized yet that Earl E. McDowell's book is self-published?

Yep, though I refrained from commenting on that and his areas of expertise. I'd rather attack the message than the messenger. I have read very well-written pieces by so-called unqualified authors and garbage by "well-credentialed" experts.

 

[igor]

Let me re-emphasize that Earl the Pearl's appearance was bad form indeed. No show for the promised debate, just belittling and IMHO downright sneering remarks .

No content whatsoever, and the same seems to apply for his "work" as well (yes, I took some of my precious time to read what's available online). Rhetoric is all about form, not necessarily substance! The prof was definitely all show, no go.

And Danus, you did seriously hype him and failed to deliver. Mild-to-medium shame on both of you .

 

[Robert Hairless]

I think that approach sounds more reasonable than it is, Ieyasu, and members of this forum are better able than most others to know why it isn't.

Those of us interested in self defense, for example, know that it's dangerous to ignore signals telegraphing that something isn't right. That fellow wearing a hooded sweatshirt and sweatpants on the hottest day of the year might be a stockbroker trying to lose a few pounds, but if he also slips his hand into his waistband as he approaches and appears to be nodding at someone behind you, then takes a few quick glances to your right and left, it is a good idea to get away from that messenger before he delivers his message.

When something doesn't look right, smell right, or behave right the overwhelming odds are that it is not right. What happened here, I think, is that forum members were manipulated into giving a significant platform for the promotion of a vanity press book by an author who has no claim to be read on a subject in which he has no standing. If McDowell had self published a book on The Elements of Self Defense that advocated shooting people because they dressed differently, lying to the police, fabricating evidence, and concealing crimes, I doubt--and I hope--that forum members would resist any suggestion that they debate those ideas with him. My guess is that a moderator would terminate such a debate fasterthanaspeedingbullet. Now, as was predictable, McDowell has some degree of standing because of his invited appearance here.

It should be obvious that McDowell wrote a book on a subject for which he has no apparent credentials and no background, about which he seems to have only derivative information, and with which he seems to have no training in the techniques of researching, investigating, and evaluating sources of varying degrees of value on this complex, controversial, and extremely important subject. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

That's the context for my previous note that McDowell's book is self published. Reputable publishers of scholarly books and editors of responsible academic journals have manuscripts on controversial subjects evaluated by several experts in the field and consider their reports before publishing. The idea is to subject the product to quality testing before--not after--it is presented to public view and for the author to meet any reasonable objections he might have overlooked.

The most likely possibilities to me are that either McDowell's book was submitted to and rejected by reputable publishers or he decided to skip them entirely. I don't discount the possibility that he sought the opinions of friends, sympathetic colleagues, and others with opinions similar to his, but I simply would not believe that he got tough evaluations from established scholars such as John Lott who would have challenged him. McDowell appears to have done research that satisfied himself, formulated opinions that he judged to be good, wrote them as he pleased, and paid to have the result published. Of course it is possible that such a message could be better than such a messenger, but the probability surely is infinitesimal. In the United States of America everyone has an opinion about everything, but I hope it is not undemocratic or elitest to suggest that not all opinions on any subject have equal value. If I'm wrong, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy deserves more respect for her opinions about firearms than I'm inclined to give her and Michael Moore is a cutting edge intellectual.

The subtitle of McDowell's book is "An Outline of the Need for Increased Federal Legislation" but I'm not aware of any evidence that McDowell has more than a general awareness of firearms, law, federal legislation in general or firearms legislation in particular, politics, government, or anything else that could give his opinions substance. For me this book is a rather sad curiosity with no claim to be read or given any attention.

What I do see is evidence that McDowell's pronouncements on the subject matter of this book are of much less value than most. Look at its front cover in the attached illustration for a significant clue to what I mean. Where a reputable book publisher might use that cover to attract readers by proclaiming the author's distinguished work on the book's subject, McDowell's vanity press book cites him as "Author of Interviewing Practices of Technical Writers and Research in Scientific and Technical Communication." There's substantial disconnect here between the book's subject and the author's claim to be read on it.

According to the University's web site McDowell is a semi-retired professor in its Department of Writing Studies. His Ph.D. is in "Speech Communication." His research experience is in "employment cycle interviewing, including employment, appraisal, disciplinary and exit interviews." His teaching has been "courses in interviewing and research in scientific and technical communication." And his specialties are:

1. Technical communication apprehension
   
2. Technical communication programs
   
3. Employment cycle interviewing
   
4. Conflict
   
5. Gender and psychological sex
   
6. International aspects of technical communication
   
7. Comparison of U.S. and Japanese students on different communication variables

"Professor McDowell," according to his University web page, "is currently on 50% time phased retirement." From the slight available evidence--the slightness of which itself is suggestive--I cannot evaluate a claim that McDowell is, or was, a distinguished rhetorician but I doubt it. McDowell looks to me like someone who spent his academic career teaching students in the writing department how to handle interviews, write resumes, and such--what some academics call "service courses." Somebody has to do them but better you than me, and rarely are they the province of distinguished scholars. Now on his way to full retirement, McDowell has set forth in a new direction, an argument for more federal gun control. Igor's comments, above, hit the mark.

I don't understand why people here lend McDowell a hand to accomplish what we don't want.

 

[Ieyasu]

On the other hand Robert Hairless, as I mentioned in my previous post, it's quite possible (and been done) for someone outside their field of expertise to write credibly on a subject. Sure he couldn't get his book published, but this by itself doesn't mean the material was deficient. Again, I've seen it both ways. Good material initially rejected, complete garbage peer reviewed and critically acclaimed.

Aim for the heart first -- attack the message, as posters here did. The message itself was factually incorrect. After that, it's fine to show that the messenger is not worth paying attention to. It was obvious that he was an academic gadfly.

I don't understand why people here lend McDowell a hand to accomplish what we don't want.

Other than Danus ex, who still refuses to engage, who helped McDowell? (Except for one member who, inexplicably to me, hastily bought the book.)

 

[Robert Hairless]

I do agree that it's possible for someone to write credibly outside their field of expertise, Ieyasu, and I've seen it done. What I've never seen before, though, is for such a person to be invited to address a rather significant forum as if he had written credibly when all the signs pointed in the opposite direction.

Again, although it might sound reasonable to say "evaluate the message" it is not reasonable in this situation because it lends the message a claim to be taken seriously. McDowell has no such claim and all the outward and visible signs pointed in that direction instead of any other.

Gun control advocates are no great rarity. The rarity here, I think, is for a self published gun control advocate to be donated a notable platform for self promotion of his gun control work when it has no obvious claim even to be read.

With that perspective as background I confess to being taken aback by your statement that "the message itself was factually incorrect." There was no reason to anticipate another outcome. All evidence predicted this one. It's nice to suggest that there potentially are great rewards in looking for gold in every unmined field but the chances of finding it are small.

I suppose that part of what I am trying to say is that it would have been smarter to know what McDowell had written before inviting him to debate or participating in such a debate. Look through the pages of that debate and my notice my absence.

As for who here besides Danus ex helped McDowell, you did and so did everyone else who dignified his position by suggesting that he might have something of value and was worth debating. I didn't.

Now McDowell can say, truthfully, that his work was considered so important that he was invited to debate it on perhaps the most influential forum for gun owners. I know of no other gun control advocate who can make that statement. McDowell now has a claim to be read and taken seriously. This forum has done for him what in the normal course of events he probably could not have done for himself. Had McDowell merely shown up one day, announced that he had paid to have his gun control book published, and offered to debate it with members here I doubt that he would have caught few or no fish.

I've witnessed the making of a reputable gun control advocate in an astonishingly short time. The publication date of his book was July 7, 2007. Within a few weeks he had staked out a discussion of it here.

The accomplishment was rather cleverly done and the achievement is noteworthy. I've learned a lot from watching this performance.

 

[Ieyasu]

What I've never seen before, though, is for such a person to be invited to address a rather significant forum as if he had written credibly when all the signs pointed in the opposite direction.

I don't know about the "never before" part, but I agree with the rest of the sentence.

Again, although it might sound reasonable to say "evaluate the message" it is not reasonable in this situation because it lends the message a claim to be taken seriously.

I disagree. Refuting claims does not mean they are necessarily taken seriously.

I suppose that part of what I am trying to say is that it would have been smarter to know what McDowell had written before inviting him to debate or participating in such a debate.

*LOL* Tell that to Danus ex.

As for who here besides Danus ex helped McDowell, you did and so did everyone else who dignified his position by suggesting that he might have something of value and was worth debating. I didn't.

I figured you'd say that. I get tired of repeating myself, however...

On the original thread I said we shouldn't bother responding to the guy for similar reasons you give. However, other THR posters gave their reasons why they felt it was important to respond. They convinced me that you and I were wrong. I won't repeat their reasons here.

Now McDowell can say, truthfully, that his work was considered so important that he was invited to debate it on perhaps the most influential forum for gun owners

McDowell now has a claim to be read and taken seriously.

You're kidding right??? I thought I was dealing with someone grounded in reality until I read those two statements. This board doesn't carry diddly squat in academic circles. I can't believe I have to say that. Please tell me I misunderstand....I'm left speechless...

I've witnessed the making of a reputable gun control advocate.

Okay, ha ha. Sorry, I took you seriously. Not very funny as far as sarcasm goes, though.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I suspect that we share some common ground in viewing this debacle, Ieyasu, but we obviously differ in a few more or less significant respects that would take some distance to reconcile. But good enough is sufficient for me.

Your last message made me realize that our differences might arise from different perspectives on Internet gun forums. I don't consider them academic arenas and I'm not concerned with Earl E. McDowell's scholarly reputation on the subject of gun control. He's evidently slipping off the tail end of his academic career so I doubt if he has aspirations to begin another.

Unless McDowell is even less grounded in reality than I, or unless there has been a sustained hard freeze in Minnesota that chilled the brain of his Dean more than is usual and necessary for that position, he should know that a vanity press book is no asset in academic circles except those of Ruritania. So your comment that "This board doesn't carry diddly squat in academic circles" reveals more about your vision than mine or his.

I've been talking exclusively about constructing an aura of legitimization for McDowell and his work in gun control circles and with those who feed in them. It's a much larger and more significant corridor than the halls of academe for this issue. Few people committed to one extreme or another are likely to change positions anyway. Smart money tries to sway parts of the larger population who are in the middle or somewhere between the committed extremes. They are millions of people who don't participate in forums like this, wouldn't do so, wouldn't wade through old messages here if they did, and will never know that McDowell's appearance here was a fiasco for him.

It doesn't matter that he didn't or couldn't defend his position here. What matters is only that within a few weeks after this first book of his advocating gun control McDowell was invited to debate it. When the vested opposition invites a new player on the scene to appear so they can debate him, that player must be important. Who, after all, would waste time on a gadfly of such little significance that he had to pay his own book into print--unless, of course, that book is the kind of work you've been describing as worthwhile despite the author's lack of previous standing in the field.

I'm surprised to see you say that others here "convinced me that you and I were wrong." They must be much more accomplished at argument than I am because I'm unable to convince you that you're wrong about anything, and I can't fathom how they would make you believe that I was wrong before now. I am again impressed.

I've enjoyed this discussion.

 

[Ieyasu]

It doesn't matter that he didn't or couldn't defend his position here. What matters is only that within a few weeks after this first book of his advocating gun control McDowell was invited to debate it. When the vested opposition invites a new player on the scene to appear so they can debate him, that player must be important.

Your post makes perfect sense up until this point (and not just because I disagree. )

Some kid just out of college asks a professor to respond to comments on a message board -- professor posts -- members respond. That doesn't mean said professor is important. You've committed a huge non-sequitur.

Who, after all, would waste time on a gadfly of such little significance that he had to pay his own book into print--unless, of course, that book is the kind of work you've been describing as worthwhile despite the author's lack of previous standing in the field.

Again, this is why I don't think you're serious. People on this board respond to trolls as well. The board literally lights up when a troll appears. The troll doesn't magically receive some "aura" of respect. Trolls have no previous "standing in the field," etc. Employing your logic, trolls must be important too since they get such a huge response.

Come clean, man. Admit you're not serious about the professor acquiring an aura of respect by folks responding to him. I'd sure like to know how that mechanism works. *SIGH*

Edited to add: It would have swelled his head more if nobody had responded. He'd claim victory. Either way the size of his "aura" would remain the same. ;-)

 

[Robert Hairless]

A man walks into a bar, finds a vacant stool, sits and orders a beer. The bartender serves him. At that very moment both are startled by the sight and sounds of another patron banging his head against the wall.

"Hey you," shouts the bartender. "Why are you banging your head against that wall?"

The headbanger pauses for a moment to reply: "Because it feels so good when I stop."

I feel really good now, Ieyasu, and don't want to spoil the moment for the sake of trying to get you to understand that I am not talking about academia, not talking about trolls, and not talking about any of the other things you've deluded yourself into believing.

Sayonara.

 

[Ieyasu]

I am not talking about academia, not talking about trolls, and not talking about any of the other things you've deluded yourself into believing.

You've shown no mechanism by which responding to a professor on a message board somehow, in your own words, "construct an aura of legitimization for McDowell and his work in gun control circles and with those who feed in them." (Except maybe in his own head [and yours], but not responding would have done same [to him, but not yours]).

 

[thexrayboy]

A review of the positions and beliefs espoused by Mr. McDowell would tend to reinforce my postion in regards to people who are anti 2A and coincidentally usually described as being in the "liberal" end of the political spectrum. These people have made a long standing societal platform and for many a political career out of using emotions and feelings as a basis for societal change and legislative action. Facts, rationality and reality are irrelevant to them. They stake out a belief and then proceed to gather facts, figures and evidence that can be used to support that belief rather than to follow the established pattern of using available data to form and prove or disprove a belief in something.

I find it mildly amusing the the liberal side of society, which tends to denigrate religion and faith is so easily swayed to follow the banners of beliefs that are based soley on emotion and wishful thinking. Beliefs that are readily countered by logic, reasoning and objectively measured facts.

 

[230RN]

Robert Hairless:

Hasn't anyone else realized yet that Earl E. McDowell's book is self-published?

I asked about that very early in the thread.

I also touted my strong suspicions that the whole affair was a marketing ploy, again, early in the original thread.

I, too, however, felt that, omitting a lot of the miscellaneous posts, the thread was a temendous resource and I learned a lot. I was sore disappointed, though, that the Professor did not present any substantive counters to our questions/arguments. I left the thread with the impression that the Professor did not want to engage in a meaningful discussion, but only wanted to generate "rhetoric."

And sales.

Sorry if that doesn't sound very High Road, but I learned long ago back in NY to look for the "angle."

And, frankly, I am wondering along the same lines in this particular thread.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Witness my post # 110 on this page:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=297709&page=5

Post # 110

Pardon my Brooklyn-bred street smarts/"paranoia," where one is trained from birth to always be alert for the "angle," but it looks to me like this is a backhanded marketing ploy --and a clever one at that.

For, after all, it is pretty likely that many anti-gunners peruse this forum, and would thereby be alerted to the fact that the book is available.

Beats an author tour. I'm curious as to whom the publisher is --a "Vanity House," perhaps?

Well, whether it's really an intentional marketing ploy or not...

..that's the way it looks to this old Brooklyn Coot.

------------
Footnotes:

1. I am always put off when someone says he "own/owned N guns but," as if someohow that qualifies them as sympathetic to the spirit and explicit provisions of A2.

2. (Elided as no longer relevant.)

 

[jfh]

"...You cannot debate something with someone who has no rational basis for their belief."
​

Well, in one sense, I agree with you--but I've also reached the conclusion that we have to learn to debate with irrational people. We can debate with them, and in doing so we hopefully can limit the influence and the power they have.

About twelve years ago I sought out Paul Wellstone at the MN State Fair in the Fair DFL Booth and lectured him on the intellectually- and morally- bankrupt efforts of the gun-control crowd as demonstrated by creating a political definition of firearms ('assault weapons.') I chastised him for being an academic who commited himself to supporting those efforts, and that I was ashamed to see an academic from 'my school' debase himself with that kind of sophistry. IIRC, he had no good reply, other than something about benefitting the community.

The exchange was short; his union-based Goon Squad escorted me from the pavilion as soon as Wellstone directed his attention elsewhere.

I re-tell this anecdote simply because it was, after all, an attempt to engage with irrational beliefs. If we don't continue to do that, the pro-gun crowd is going to lose ground.

It's that simple.

Jim H.

 

[IA_farmboy]

I've finally took the time to read the portion of Dr. McDowell's book that was accessible on the internet. I also participated in the "debate" that started this all and even received a PM from the good Doctor as a result. This is what I took away...

I found his writing to be uninteresting and almost amateurish. One thing that sticks out in my mind is that he mentions getting hundreds of letters, pro and con. He puts some of them in his book. He picks a very thoughtful and eloquent letter from someone supporting gun control. He also picks four very rude and unintelligent letters that are against gun control. I would think that someone that claims to be a professional writer and master debater could do better than that.

He talks of murder, suicide, and firearm accidents. He then equates those to firearm regulation. I saw little in his writing to connect the two. The assumption is made that only firearms are involved in murder and suicide. While a firearm must be present for an accident to occur with a firearm that is quite leap to claim firearms must be taken from many. Of course a firearm is dangerous, otherwise it would not be very useful. By the way that also describes automobiles, power tools, and kitchen appliances. They are useful precisely because of the damage they can inflict, rendering them "safe" would render them useless.

I have been told that only when one can debate both sides of an argument does one truly understand the topic. I don't believe that. In most cases one can come to a conclusion that no matter how much one debates one must come to one conclusion. I've seen some seriously absurd topics come up for debate. One I am reminded of is on a video concerning pollution and global warming. There was actually a debate to outlaw chlorine. The element chlorine. Some one posed a law to outlaw an element. That would be difficult to enforce as it occurs naturally.

I dislike debates that try to convince others of the correctness of one side. I prefer what some call a "Socratic Debate" where one does not try to debate a preconceived notion with a person of an opposing notion like most debates but instead people discuss a topic and try to come to a mutually agreed upon conclusion.

I've had some socratic debates online and face to face, none of them a formal debate. They are very stimulating and I learn as much as I teach. A socratic debate never truly ends, it continues as new information is discovered and new views added. I've seen a bit of information on both sides of the debate on gun control and I have come to my own conclusion. I reconsider my position as I discover new information. I have not seen any new information presented by Dr. McDowell. His arguments, like many others on firearm control and registration, is heavy on emotion and light on facts.

I'd like to see Dr. McDowell return and participate in a socratic debate. I'd like to see him convince me, and anyone else that wishes to participate in socratic debate, that there is such a thing as being pro-gun-control while not being anti-gun. I find it hard to believe such a middle ground exists, at least as far as law is concerned. This debate should not be difficult for a professional writer, master debater, and someone so highly educated.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

I re-tell this anecdote simply because it was, after all, an attempt to engage with irrational beliefs. If we don't continue to do that, the pro-gun crowd is going to lose ground.

It's that simple.

I agree jfh, didn't mean to imply we shouldn't engage them, just that true debate is not possible. That anecdote is a great example. Tell the truth, if and when they push you aside with no rational discourse, it makes them appear smaller not you. Great job!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The most interesting book I read on the Civil War was a
self-published book. But it was written by a history buff lawyer,
who did not use Dr. or Prof. in his byline. For an academic to
self-publish almost a hobby book is somehow .... strange.
But his ideas should stand or fall on their merits, not on
their packaging. Still, the book would be more credible from
a university press.

Can Prof. Earl E. McDowell point to any articles by him on law,
criminology or history published in a peer-reviewed, refereed
journal devoted to those subjects? I know, that has not stopped
Tim Lambert, professor of computer graphics, from lambasting
Donald B. Kates on HistoryNewsNetwork or John Lott on Wikipedia
on the subject of gun control. Heck, the lack of academic credentals
hasn't stopped me from opining, but I do it as a layman, without
color of office.

Author Earl E. McDowell urges the silent majority to become the vocal majority

Personally, I do not believe it is a silent anti-gun majority versus a vocal
pro-gun minority. I think it is a vocal anti-gun minority versus a vocal
pro-gun minority. (OK, BIG pro-gun minority).

James Wright demonstrated in Under the Gun (Aldine, 1983) that the
majority of folks in America support the right to own a gun, support
moderate laws to try to prevent misuse, but also oppose laws that
restrict ownership for lawful purposes.

England is an example of where a vocal anti-gun minority steamrollered
over a silent pro-gun minority while the vast majority were indifferent.
Remember England. If we are to preserve our rights, we must remain
the vocal minority. We should do so by marshalling our arguments with
a view to convert the majority, and not to give in to a siege mentality
of us v them.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I'm afraid that his research was not a widespread exploration of the subject. He seems to have stayed with sources which supported a pre-existing opinion.

Add a sticky star to Art's report card!

Brad