He was a murderous shit, but consider his perspective and how malicious he felt for his dirty deeds.Al Capone was also a murderous piece of shit though. He has the blood of over 120 people on his hands, if not for murdering them, for giving the order. I mean, if we are comparing TT to Al Capone, I'm not sure we are too far offHow many people did you give cancer to TT? The world may never know.
My point is even malicious murderous shits have justified their behavior in their own minds, borrowed from Dale Carnagie's How to win friends and influence people, because their perspectives are different.
That doesn't mean that we have to agree with them, but consider that they didn't start their day planning what they considered to be an underhanded, unscrupulous response.
I mention these things not to defend them, but to better understand and cope with them.
As a for instance, who is most likely to open their hearts to you? Someone that you have just attacked, or someone whose actions you have challenged, without personally attacking them?
What is the goal? To pummel all who have a trace of stink on them, or to get to the truth?
Miscreants deserve to be and should be beaten with a dead rabbit before being hung to death, but how do we get their best cooperation arriving at the truth up to that point, and are all sins equal??
It is easier to be open with someone understanding, than an attacker, so what is our best approach?
What is gained by excoriating them up front, and every time they respond?
Does it encourage more participation from them, or less?
As a bottom line, consider that we reached at least one of our goals, and are locked solidly into the second, so clearly our process is not without accolades and merit.
The question that I pose, is that if we had it to over again, how would we proceed to improve our effectiveness? A rhetorical question that each of us has to answer as we sees it.
