<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 11.11.2012, at 18.16, Chris Benham wrote:</div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 73px; text-indent: -73px; font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Helvetica; "><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 12pt; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px; RIGHT: auto">[robert bristow-johnson wrote:] "the most realistic path to accomplishing that is *not* to advocate a method <br>that cannot be explained to citizen-legislators."<br><br>Yes, but it also helps to advocate a method that opponents can't easily ridicule<br>with bad examples.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Which methods don't have any such "bad examples" that can be used for negative marketing? ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>Juho</div></div></body></html>