Shooting the Messenger (Edit 2015-07-19)

Wikipedia has an article on "Shooting the messenger" that starts like this:

"Shooting the messenger" or "killing the messenger" is a metaphoric phrase used to describe the act of lashing out at the (blameless) bearer of bad news.  

Until the advent of modern telecommunications, messages were usually delivered by a human envoy. For example, in a war, the messenger was sent from the enemy camp. An easily provoked combatant receiving such an overture could more easily vent anger (or otherwise retaliate) on the deliverer of the unpopular message than on its author.

"Attacking the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

(...)

"A modern version of attacking the messenger can be perceived when someone blames the media for presenting bad news about a favored cause, person, organization, etc. The fact remains that "shooting the messenger may be a time-honored emotional response to unwelcome news, but it is not a very effective method of remaining well-informed."

Getting rid of the messenger may be a tactical move, but danger found in nondisclosure may result in either hostile responses or negative feedback from others. "People learn very quickly where this is the case, and will studiously avoid giving any negative feedback; thus the 'Emperor" continues with the self-delusion....Obviously this is not a recipe for success." 

---

My - former? (Edit 2015-07-19: Hiro and I have chatted and come to the conclusion that we are still friends even if we have differing positions in this case. I was extremely gladdened.) - friend Hiroku Kamachi, the recently appointed new IT-Director of Gay Archipelago, shows an interesting aspect of the phrase in a post on his blog today entitled "The Mind of Hiro: Pearls From Swine".

For easier reading, click the snips to enlarge.

---

You should know Hiroku, that whatever may happen now or in the future, I will always be grateful to you for the empathy and support you have shown me in the past. 

Although everything seems so self evident and natural to you, you could at least try to accept or admit that it wasn't so for everyone concerned. The fact that they - and I - perceive a problem where you don't see one, doesn't make us inherently bad, malicious, foolish or even - to use your word - "swine". Name calling and other verbal abuse ("Bitchy Old Queen", "The Old Boy's Club" and "The Old Guard") is usually quite counterproductive for a successful dialog - if that is what one wants.