seem to ascribe to people the worst of all possible motives. For example, I recently made the mistake of looking at your message board. You made a comment about the debate we conducted at the Guardian on advertising. I can't remember the exact words you used, but they were along the lines of "here's Monbiot diluting his message in order to suck up to his boss." I thought that was an unfair characterisation, and that you were quite wrong. What I was trying to do was to make my case as persuasively as possible, in order to precipitate change at the Guardian. To do that you have to understand the other person's point of view and anticipate his counter-arguments. Otherwise you merely end up -- again -- alienating and antagonising instead of persuading. My engagement with Alan Rusbridger was the same as my engagement would be with anyone who's broadly on the same side but has a difference of opinion on a particular issue (and who hasn't yet thoroughly antagonised me through bombardment or misattribution(!)). I thought the motive you imputed to me, while inaccurate and unworthy of you, was also familiar. The sense I sometimes get when reading your alerts is that there's no such thing as a legitimate difference of opinion. If journalists at the Guardian and elsewhere do not agree with your line in every particular, it's because they are corporate stooges defending their pay packets. In reality some issues, such as the matter of whether NATO