That's not true at all. They are appropriate when you are actually trying to deflate the opposing side's character. For example, if someone has a history of mak

That's not true at all. They are appropriate when you are actually trying to deflate the opposing side's character. For example, if someone has a history of making poor choices, it's likely that any further choice they make is also likely poor. That's why judges often take into consideration whether an offense is someone's first, or someone's third. With that being said, both sides definitely should have reconsidered their PR strategy. Both being techies, it's reasonable to assume that they should be fully aware of how things like this propagate on the internet.