Fight Opponents without being Obsessed by Them: The ‘Price of Fish’ Response

Even with the best efforts there will always be opponents who will never be allies of the project. They will do anything to fight it. Here are some clues to identify them. They interpret every action as a threat. They have a natural tendency to see evil everywhere, including places where it does not exist. For example, they are invited to a public meeting to debate the issues, but they say it is an attempt to manipulate them. They ask questions but do not listen to the answers. Their questions are designed to destabilise, not to progress the debate. For example, they will say: ‘Who will guarantee people’s freedom of choice?’ If a guarantee is given, their response will be: ‘Ah, of course, this is proof that there will not be freedom of choice, but how are you going to compensate those people who will be wronged by you?’ (implying that people will be wronged), and so on. They do not seek to find truth, but to impose their truth. They invite the project team to adversarial debates. The room will be full of their allies. A referee is proposed who will be biased. They offer to negotiate? They just want the project to lose time. With regard to opponents, there are two rules which apply: 1. Never let an attack from opponents pass, because the attack is heard by the passives and considered by them as valid unless it is rebutted. To ignore an attack runs the risk of leading the passives to believe that the attack was justified. As we will see later (p. 209), the best way to attack opponenents is through one’s allies. 2. Never respond to an attack by justifying oneself, that is by explaining why the opponent is wrong.