SJ: "Advocate groups should pursue their goals through all reasonable channels: Public Demonstrations, Letters to local members of Congress, and Letters to the Automotive Industry, etc."
Why would someone who is offended by direct communication feel any less offended by the message if they read it in an op-ed? The argument is going to be the same either way, so if they are going to get offended by well-meaning, well-argued contentions made their favorite newsgroup, then chances are they would be offended by the same argument presented in other venues.
SJ: "To elaborate, I don't go up to Toyota owners _AFTER_ they've made their purchase and expect them to sell their car/truck because of my personal beliefs."
First, although I presented many challenges to SUV owners, don't forget that I also concurred that those who need the capability should get an SUV, and I said that I respect others' decisions who have listened to the arguments but arrived at a different conclusion, and I made the claim that owning an SUV and advocating reform are not necessarily mutually exclusive. So I don't think it's fair to characterize this approach as pure badgering.
Second, if I can get a membership to this board, then certainly there must be a spectrum of people reading it -- anywhere from die hard owners to people who just like big, shiny cars. Are you saying that in addition to SUV owners, advocates should stay away from people who are even considering buying an SUV?
In fact, with regards to the consumption aspect, SUV owners have an even higher vested interest in obtaining and using knowledge to reform regulation, since they are the ones who suffer the most at the pump.
-Jason
|