I tend to think of this immediate reversion to ad hominem attacks as an extension of the bike-shedding impulse. Is PRISM a good idea? Did Edward Snowden do the

I tend to think of this immediate reversion to ad hominem attacks as an extension of the bike-shedding impulse. Is PRISM a good idea? Did Edward Snowden do the right thing? Where is the line between unacceptable disclosures (that should be punished severely) and, e.g., the Pentagon Papers. These are complex issues and few people are courageous enough to take a stand on them, especially under their real names. There's just too much uncertainty. I sure as hell don't know what the right answer is, on many of these questions. But everyone feels entitled to an opinion of whether Julian Assange is "creepy", "arrogant", et cetera. As a lesser degree of whistleblower, I went through something similar. People make all kinds of speculations about why you did what you did, and they're usually far off the mark. Granted, in my case I made some mistakes along the way. For one example, I probably should not have implored Google to "choke on a taint" at one point (if only because it distracted attention away from the valid message there) even if, on that particular issue, my indignation was justified. People get into bike-shedding discussions about personalities and possible motivations because it's a lot easier than discussing the underlying and often more complicated issues.