Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 6182124" data-attributes="member: 8835">Like you, I assumed that general consensus was that the PA guys didn't do the best response.  Had they hired a proper PR person to handle any such stuff, they might have avoided fault in the matter.It's the extremism of some of the reactions and the inaccurate rhetoric by those specific opponents that I think strike some of us (such as yourself) as bad.Umbran may be right that popular appeal or "how a reasonable person would see things" isn't a valid test, but I do feel that it is a gut check for smelling that something fishy is going on.Therefore, using logic, how does one measure if the responsive reaction is appropriate or not?It's probably good to find logical rules that support the foregone conclusion that our gut says (ex. we don't like their behavior)But I think there's some clues:did they tell the truth or speak accurately?Did their reaction cause harm beyond stopping the bad thing they objected to?</blockquote>