[mmirate]

Convey to us reasonable people, reading it at a distance as 3rd-parties?

Absolutely.

...

Convey to the intended recipient, with his inevitable personal/emotional/etc. attachments to the topic, in such a way that it takes the intended effect?

A pending question-of-fact, and one that can only be answered very indirectly and in the long run.

Heck, if the answer really is "no", then it's possible we may never know! (until the NSA pwns us all, or at least pwns the subset of us who didn't kowtow to whoever the central socio-econo-political authority of that era will be)

[akerl_]

I don't think it's actually a pending question whether avoiding personal attacks makes people more likely to listen to a message.

[kryogen1c]

> I don't think it's actually a pending question whether avoiding personal attacks makes people more likely to listen to a message.

That depends on the context. When you're talking about changing ingrained behaviors, emotional shock and awe can definitely be necessary and the shortest, most painless path to resolution.

the underlying incorrect assumption is that everyone will do the right thing, if only nicely and logically talked to. This is not true and obvious to anyone with experience managing large amounts of people, especially so when firing is not an easy option.

[mikeash]

Personal attacks just make people defensive. They’re pretty ineffective at actually convincing people of anything.

This sort of cold-blooded rational takedown is way more effective.

[slededit]

His commit access was removed. If the recipient didn't understand he will when he tries to push his next change.