>...so like this philosophy or not, one can't claim it isn't effective or has zero credibility,
>
>{Sigh} As usual, you have misinterpreted what I said. I said that I gave people who subscribe to Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" zero credibility. This is the handbook for liberal progressive movement - JIC you don't already know this.

And I pointed out that this is untrue and the listed a series of examples where people who do subscribe to this have quite a bit of credibility ans success - which I apparently you have chosen to ignore.

>By the way, I did not get the rules that I posted from any wiki page. Wiki pages cannot be counted on to be accurate or even true.

Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica - and for those of us that have actually read the book I can assure you that you were missing the last set of rules - so obviously wherever you got your information from is not as complete as the webpage you falsely claim is not accurate because this particular webpage on the site is indeed correct.

You can get the PDF of the book for free from here:
https://ia600309.us.archive.org/30/items/RulesForRadicals/RulesForRadicals.pdf

Read it first - then any discussion you want to have about it will actually have some merit.

>Over and out. I have too much work to do to continue playing this game.

..or apparently bother to read a book you want to criticize either.