dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (03/21/86)
[] There have been several postings lately concerning the right to criticize. Some have essentially declared that it is their right and duty to try to improve things. Fine. One has that right. But, improvement is not necessarily the intended change. If it is for improvement then: If there is improvement then one should acknowledge it. It is at least fair, it provides encouragement, and it indicates that that is indeed the purpose. If there is no improvement then one might as well stop the criticism anyway; it is not doing what it was intended to do. It becomes, as someone wrote in an earlier posting, like trying to teach a pig to dance. It only makes the pig mad and makes you frustrated and muddy. In either case, there comes a point where such criticism becomes worthless at best. Why? People are not going to try to do much (except maybe to subvert their critic's efforts) when they know that no matter what they do, they will either get criticized, or at least refused acknowledgement when something goes right. Particularly if it is perceived that the criticism is unwarranted, or is an attempt to undermine what they think is already good for them. Improvement can be the stated purpose for criticism, but the true motive can be something decidedly less noble -- like being entertained by watching someone squirm, or some other act of intellectual vandalism. Someone once said that "there is nothing like success to destroy a political movement." He's probably right. If a situation improves, then the critics of that situation may not be needed anymore -- something that one who has invested his life, built a career, or gained political clout from such a movement cannot afford. My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- from Hamlet Act 3 Scene 2