First, denigrate the messenger by implying their lack of standing is a measure of their argument:
I don't think McAfee cares what you (or anybody else) prefers, so your words are probably quite worthless
Then, construct a wild extrapolation, hinting at totalitarianism and intolerance:
Sounds like you would choose his words for him, if you could.
Seriously people, WTF. Are you so insecure about Bitcoin's success that even the slightest criticism of McAfee's
delivery (note I never even questioned his premise) is sufficient to trigger your moral descent into personal attacks and fabricated innuendos?
I have historically held both Mr Augustus and Mr Banks in good esteem as worthwhile posters of comments and rebuttals on this forum, usually based on logic and not emotions. It is disappointing to see you both descend into petty smearing tactics as a first response, especially on a topic as ridiculously trivial and ephemeral such as this one, and on a statement as innocuous and uncontroversial as claiming that when speaking on public mass media, it is an optimal strategy to know your audience and to choose your words for maximum persuasive power.
In my opinion McAffee wasted an opportunity to make a much more positive association in the minds of the average viewer between Bitcoin and disruptive, universally recognized, uncontroversial enablers of liberty and free speech. Instead, he chose an analogy associated with disruptive weapons technology. Logically valid, but not optimal.
Following my own advice, I will now disengage from further confrontation on this thread. Enjoy your echo chamber without any further dissent.
Ooops, must have hit a nerve in there somewhere ... I read most of your stuff too when I happen upon it, is this another one of those "thnx for all the fish moment"?
"Logically valid, but not optimal."
More smoothie talk since you're using your subjective definition of "optimal" I'm supposing. I liked the reference to gunpowder, you didn't, why is that such a big deal? It'll be forgotten by the bland, braindead masses you're hoping to wean onto bitcoin, and any sanitised version you may have come up with forgotten quicker still no doubt .... you're hoping a haircut, shave and new suit for bitcoin is going to make you richer?
I think you might be falling into the trap of thinking that bitcoin is somehow a political currency, it isn't, it is an apolitical technical solution to a technical/engineering problem. It doesn't need marketing, salesmen, smooth talking operators parading their fineries in the ivory halls of power and academia ... it just needs to work well ... like gunpowder, or printing presses, faxes, email s/ware, etc.
Actually, I also really like Charlie Munger's reference analogy to bitcoin as "rat poison" ... as that could be taken either way depending on who you view as the rats. Any analogy is going to be deficient, because it is merely an analogy but bitcoin definitely is going to have a sting in the tail that faxes or email never did so those were kind of lame analogies, imo.
