Dear Bob ...In this week's Keep the Joint Running, "The value of a little failure here and there," (7/16/2007) you said this: Ridicule is fun, persuasive, and best of all demonizes the group of people called them. It's the more emotionally satisfying alternative to understanding what's really going on. It combines scapegoating and ad hominem argument -- two of the most trod upon paving stones in the road to beco Dear Bob …In this week’s Keep the Joint Running, “The value of a little failure here and there,” (7/16/2007) you said this: Ridicule is fun, persuasive, and best of all demonizes the group of people called them. It’s the more emotionally satisfying alternative to understanding what’s really going on. It combines scapegoating and ad hominem argument — two of the most trod upon paving stones in the road to becoming an idiot. Interesting that you should choose to make this statement so closely on the heels of your discussion of prudes (“The new prudes,” 7/9/2007).– Sensitive to double standardsDear Sensitive … “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” – Ralph Waldo EmersonOkay, that isn’t good enough, is it?There’s no question, I’m small enough to enjoy poking fun at those with whom I disagree. It’s one of those small, guilty pleasures, like eating a few Oreo cookies when my wife can’t see me, that I have no intention of giving up. The question is whether I’m being a hypocrite in doing so. I don’t think so.I’d be a hypocrite if, instead of presenting a logical, evidence-based position, I relied on the ridicule to persuade readers by scapegoating and ad hominem argument. This would take some form of, “Don’t bother listening to those prudes. It’s their fault your PCs are so annoying – you can’t trust ’em anyway.”A point I missed, by the way, when explaining the problem with ridicule is that frequently it also relies on strawman arguments. So I might also have said, “The prudes want to take us all back to the days when you had to beg the high priests of IT for a few lines of COBOL code if you wanted to do anything at all.” They don’t of course, but by putting ludicrous words in the mouths of the other side and then demonstrating how ludicrous they are, I’d have had an easy time of it.So I confess: I succumbed to a guilty pleasure in using the word “prudes.” It was less graceful than saying, “I disagree with those respectable IT experts and processionals who favor highly restrictive computing environments.”It was also, arguably, less drab. I’m not going to ask everyone in the world, when referring to those with whom they disagree, to avoid the use of any and all terms that might be considered pejorative in any way. That would be prudish.– BobPowered by ScribeFire. Technology Industry