Hi Michael,

In the article, he seems to jump from saying that the protestors at Stanford were organized by "Communists" and "Stalinists" to implying that all the protests were organized by "Communists" and "Stalinists". However, he doesn't seem to provide any evidence for making that big leap.

For example, let's say I know that some of my customers like jazz music. Does that mean, then, that ALL of my customers like jazz music? Of course not. Just because SOME of my customers like jazz music, it does not then follow that ALL of my customers like jazz music.

The leap he makes seems to be similar to this one. He doesn't seem to back it by any evidence.

He also says that when he was a "communist", he just used people. Then he seems to imply that ALL "communists" do this - another leap which seems not backed by any evidence.

For example, let's say I used to be a supporter of California dividing into two separate states - into Northern California and Southern California. (This is an issue occasionally talked about a little bit in Northern California.) Let's say I used to lie and cheat to people to support this issue. Does that mean that EVERYONE who supports this issue is a liar and a cheater? Of course it does not.

I'm definitely not a "communist" (otherwise I wouldn't be running a marketing forum!) - but the article seems to make some leaps of logic which doesn't seem to have been backed by any evidence.

As others have said - protesting is part of the right to free speech. Rather than deal with the issues the protests raise, it is usually easier to simply "label" the protestors with a label. This seems to simply be a way of trying to avoid dealing with the issues, because to actually deal with the issues is much more complex and difficult.

- Dien Rice