On 9/25/10, JBoppjr@aol.com <JBoppjr@aol.com> wrote:
This is a good example of how "disclosure" would divert attention from the
message to the messenger. Rather than debate the ad, DeFazio want to debate
the group. Jim Bopp
Is there a proposal submitted to this group to send political./ legal
emails to this listserv anonymously, so that we may better evaluate
the message only, rather than the messenger (its source)? Why do
advocates of non-disclosure identify themselves on this listserv as
officers of organizations, attorneys, etc.? Is it to exert some
measure of influence, however small, on the source of the message as
establishing credibility, or at least to establish the source of the
view?
Why do people on occasion let on that they don't read all the messages
of certain others? Would Congresses (controlled by any party)
randomly choose witnesses to testify based on anonymously evaluated
written examples of proposed testimony, or are credentials somehow
important for the people hearing the testimony to know? Why did Brad
Smith recently sort of chide me for citing a Republican-leaning
polling organization? Did he rely on a perception that the source
(me) was Democrat? If so, why?