Tired of the Alice Waters Backlash - Are You?

[weinoo]

Actually, most of these immediately preceding posts do point out that there is a backlash against AW, whether it is because of her philosophies, her methodology of trying to get those philosophies across to the public at large, or, heaven forbid, because someone, somewhere (not herself) calls her a chef.

[slkinsey]

More Chez Panisse chef data:

It appears that Paul Aratow was chef there either not all or for a very short time. Almost immediately, the chef was Victoria Kroyer. Kroyer was the chef until sometime in 1972. Then she left and the chef was Barbara Rosenblum. Then Kroyer came back, whereuppon a power struggle ensued between her and Rosenblum. Kroyer ultimately won and Rosenblum was sacked.

Tower got the job shortly thereafter, in 1973. Prior to Tower's arrival, while the philosophical guiding light was there in the form of Waters, the food is described as relatively undistinguished.

Jean-Pierre Moulle was the fill-in chef during the times that Tower was away (although Tower remained "officially" the chef), and appears to have been the chef in the period between Miller's departure and the hiring of Bertolli.

(edited to delete some text that didn't belong in there)

Edited May 21, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Fat Guy]

A couple of illustrations further to Sam's earlier post:

I teach a class at the International Culinary Center (the parent entity of the French Culinary Institute) in what's called the Advanced Studies Program. I teach about writing, not about cooking. Of the 12 students in the seminar, something like 7 of them are involved in the FCI culinary program, some as students and others as chef-instructors. On the first day of class, a couple of people reflexively referred to me as "Chef!" which was not only bizarre but also a little uncomfortable. But it's very hard to break this habit: culinary-school people call instructors "Chef!" even when they're highly experienced chef-instructors themselves and even when the instructor is just some guy who writes about food. There was absolutely no possibility of getting them to call me "Steven." It just doesn't work in that subculture. So one of the students started calling me "Teach!" and now that's what they all call me. That's what they can manage. (P.S. My father lectured at West Point a couple of times and they always called him "Sir!" even though the highest rank he ever achieved was president of our block association.)

Another illustration: I have now spent, if you add it all up, something like six months in restaurant kitchens. Mostly I just stand around and watch. Occasionally, if they let me, I help butcher some rabbits or perform some other menial task. And once in a while, a real chef comes to me and asks me to taste a dish and comment. It's even possible that I'll be standing near the pass when the expediter has stepped away, and an order ticket will pop up on the printer, so I'll grab it and read it off, to which the line cooks always respond, "Oui, Chef!" not because they think I'm a chef but just because that's how it goes in kitchens. I assure you none of this makes anybody think I'm a chef.

[Dave the Cook]

It's not just the culinary-school culture, it's food-interested culture at large. I teach classes at a cookware store, and students, none of whom have ever attended culinary school or worked in a professional kitchen, call me -- who has never attended culinary school and whose restaurant-kitchen experience ended more than 25 years ago at the level of garde manger -- "chef" with disturbing regularity.

[Fat Guy]

I think, to answer the question, yes, I'm tired of the Alice Waters backlash.

[Jaymes]

Actually, most of these immediately preceding posts do point out that there is a backlash against AW...

Wow. Thirteen pages later and in a kind of a 'taDAH' moment, you just now reach the conclusion that only these "immediately preceding posts...point out that there is a backlash against AW" ?

Was that ever in question?

Unless I've gotten lost somewhere along the way and misunderstood these thirteen pages, whether or not there is a backlash is a given.

Of course there is.

But this discussion is about the reasons why and if it's justified and if there is now a burgeoning backlash against the backlash.

Right?

[Florida]

A couple of illustrations further to Sam's earlier post:

I teach a class at the International Culinary Center (the parent entity of the French Culinary Institute) in what's called the Advanced Studies Program. I teach about writing, not about cooking. Of the 12 students in the seminar, something like 7 of them are involved in the FCI culinary program, some as students and others as chef-instructors. On the first day of class, a couple of people reflexively referred to me as "Chef!" which was not only bizarre but also a little uncomfortable. But it's very hard to break this habit: culinary-school people call instructors "Chef!" even when they're highly experienced chef-instructors themselves and even when the instructor is just some guy who writes about food. There was absolutely no possibility of getting them to call me "Steven." It just doesn't work in that subculture. So one of the students started calling me "Teach!" and now that's what they all call me. That's what they can manage. (P.S. My father lectured at West Point a couple of times and they always called him "Sir!" even though the highest rank he ever achieved was president of our block association.)

Another illustration: I have now spent, if you add it all up, something like six months in restaurant kitchens. Mostly I just stand around and watch. Occasionally, if they let me, I help butcher some rabbits or perform some other menial task. And once in a while, a real chef comes to me and asks me to taste a dish and comment. It's even possible that I'll be standing near the pass when the expediter has stepped away, and an order ticket will pop up on the printer, so I'll grab it and read it off, to which the line cooks always respond, "Oui, Chef!" not because they think I'm a chef but just because that's how it goes in kitchens. I assure you none of this makes anybody think I'm a chef.

←

Sounds to me as if, out of all those people, you were the only person who has a problem with the word "chef." Yet you couldn't resist pointing out where everyone else was wrong, while you were right.

In our society, the term chef can be applied in a decidedly colloquial fashion to mean anyone "who manages a kitchen." As far as I'm concerned, if the guy who runs the kitchen at Denny's wants to call himself a chef, what do I care? Do I get some benefit at of belittling the guy? Does it even make me right? The term’s usage is vague enough to include even him.

Your argument makes me think of Bug Bunny. When he say’s “Whats up doc?” and the ludicrousy of Elmer Fudd correcting the rabbit with a terse “I’m not a doctor.”

[Jaymes]

A couple of illustrations further to Sam's earlier post:

I teach a class at the International Culinary Center (the parent entity of the French Culinary Institute) in what's called the Advanced Studies Program. I teach about writing, not about cooking. Of the 12 students in the seminar, something like 7 of them are involved in the FCI culinary program, some as students and others as chef-instructors. On the first day of class, a couple of people reflexively referred to me as "Chef!" which was not only bizarre but also a little uncomfortable. But it's very hard to break this habit: culinary-school people call instructors "Chef!" even when they're highly experienced chef-instructors themselves and even when the instructor is just some guy who writes about food. There was absolutely no possibility of getting them to call me "Steven." It just doesn't work in that subculture.

Maybe they could call you by your nickname - in the friendly diminutive form, of course.

Fatty.

[slkinsey]

Actually, most of these immediately preceding posts do point out that there is a backlash against AW, whether it is because of her philosophies, her methodology of trying to get those philosophies across to the public at large, or, heaven forbid, because someone, somewhere (not herself) calls her a chef.

I think that to the extent that there is backlash against Waters, it's pretty easy to figure out why:

1. She has a tendency to express her ideas in unfortunate ways that reasonable people may reasonably find condescending and not respectful of the choices that people make and the challenges people face, especially in the current economy. Since she has held herself up as a Living Embodiment of these principles, an exemplar whom everyone should emulate, she is doubly vulnurable to the same kind of backlash that has affected others who present themselves this way (Martha Stewart being the perfect and obvious example).

I do not think that there is any backlash against Waters due exclusively to people not agreeing with some of her ideas, although it is clear that not everyone agrees with all of her ideas or all of her priorities. I believe that, if she were to express herself in a different way, and if she were not holding herself up as someone whom everyone should strive to be like and whose priorities every right-thinking person should share, then I think that more people would be more open to her ideas. I also think that she would be less annoying to people who don't agree with all of her ideas, and there would consequently be less backlash. The fact is that I agree with many (probably most!) of Alice Waters ideas. And yet, I still find her preachy and annoying. And there are other people who have far more ideas with which I disagree, and yet I find these people infinitely less annoying than Waters.

2. Alice Waters's proponents and self-appointed defenders have lost part of the battle by continually insisting that her crap doesn't stink on every possible point of contention. Which is, well... annoying. If you guys had simply said: "Yea. I can see how Waters can seem preachy to some people. And maybe it wasn't such a great idea to suggest that we increase the school meal program by $18 to $40 billion dollars when our educational system is circling the drain. And maybe it's not such a great idea to say things that make you look like you're condescending to people whose family decisions include $100 Nike shoes and not $5 bunches of organic Bronx grapes. I get that. But she's got a lot of good ideas. And we do need to get better food into the schools. And we really should rethink our financial priorities as a culture, considering that we spend a lower percentage of income on food than any other first world nation. Her heart's in the right place. But, yea, I agree that she can be preachy and condescending sometimes" -- we wouldn't be having most of this conversation. Instead, it's been these ridiculous attempts to defend everything she has ever said at all costs. Well, that's going to be a losing battle. Because it seems clear that there is going to be a neverending stream of examples people can use where Waters has said things that a reasonable person might reasonably find offputting, and which might incline that person to not be so terribly fond of Alice. And some of you guys are going to have to work harder and harder and harder to defend against these things so that Alice can once again seem like someone who does no wrong. And that's really the crux of matter. Alice (along with you, her defenders) has held herself up as some kind of eco-cultural-foodie messiah who can do no wrong. This rubs people the wrong way sometimes. Basta.

Edited May 21, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[docsconz]

Actually, most of these immediately preceding posts do point out that there is a backlash against AW, whether it is because of her philosophies, her methodology of trying to get those philosophies across to the public at large, or, heaven forbid, because someone, somewhere (not herself) calls her a chef.

I think that to the extent that there is backlash against Waters, it's pretty easy to figure out why:

1. She has a tendency to express her ideas in unfortunate ways that reasonable people may reasonably find condescending and not respectful of the choices that people make and the challenges people face, especially in the current economy. Since she has held herself up as a Living Embodiment of these principles, an exemplar whom everyone should emulate, she is doubly vulnurable to the same kind of backlash that has affected others who present themselves this way (Martha Stewart being the perfect and obvious example).

I do not think that there is any backlash against Waters due to people not agreeing with some of her ideas, although it is clear that not everyone agrees with all of her ideas or all of her priorities. I believe that, if she were to express herself in a different way, and if she were not holding herself up as someone whom everyone should strive to be like and whose priorities every right-thinking person should share, then I think that more people would be more open to her ideas. I also think that she would be less annoying to people who don't agree with all of her ideas, and there would consequently be less backlash. The fact is that I agree with many (probably most!) of Alice Waters ideas. And yet, I still find her preachy and annoying. And there are other people who have far more ideas with which I disagree, and yet I find these people infinitely less annoying than Waters.

2. Alice Waters's proponents and self-appointed defenders have lost part of the battle by continually insisting that her crap doesn't stink on every possible point of contention. Which is, well... annoying. If you guys had simply said: "Yea. I can see how Waters can seem preachy to some people. And maybe it wasn't such a great idea to suggest that we increase the school meal program by $18 to $40 billion dollars when our educational system is circling the drain. And maybe it's not such a great idea to say things that make you look like you're condescending to people whose family decisions include $100 Nike shoes and not $5 bunches of organic Bronx grapes. I get that. But she's got a lot of good ideas. And we do need to get better food into the schools. And we really should rethink our financial priorities as a culture, considering that we spend a lower percentage of income on food than any other first world nation. Her heart's in the right place. But, yea, I agree that she can be preachy and condescending sometimes" -- we wouldn't be having most of this conversation. Instead, it's been these ridiculous attempts to defend everything she has ever said at all costs. Well, that's going to be a losing battle. Because it seems clear that there is going to be a neverending stream of examples people can use where Waters has said things that a reasonable person might reasonably find offputting, and which might incline that person to not be so terribly fond of Alice. And some of you guys are going to have to work harder and harder and harder to defend against these things so that Alice can once again seem like someone who does no wrong. And that's really the crux of matter. Alice (along with you, her defenders) has held herself up as some kind of eco-cultural-foodie messiah who can do no wrong. This rubs people the wrong way sometimes. Basta.

←

This is a very good summary. The only part I have taken issue with all along is when people have attacked the ideas by attacking Waters making the attacks against he ideas ad hominem attacks. Like any individual, she can be polarizing just because of who she is and some of the methods she may use. I too do not agree 100% with her, though I do find most of her ideas and most of the things she stands for, compelling. I do not have any personal gripe with Alice Waters and whether or not she is a or the chef, she owns and runs a damn great restaurant!

[Florida]

2. Alice Waters's proponents and self-appointed defenders have lost part of the battle by continually insisting that her crap doesn't stink on every possible point of contention.  Which is, well... annoying.  If you guys had simply said: "Yea.  I can see how Waters can seem preachy to some people.  And maybe it wasn't such a great idea to suggest that we increase the school meal program by $18 to $40 billion dollars when our educational system is circling the drain.  And maybe it's not such a great idea to say things that make you look like you're condescending to people whose family decisions include $100 Nike shoes and not $5 bunches of organic Bronx grapes.  I get that.  But she's got a lot of good ideas.  And we do need to get better food into the schools.  And we really should rethink our financial priorities as a culture, considering that we spend a lower percentage of income on food than any other first world nation.  Her heart's in the right place.  But, yea, I agree that she can be preachy and condescending sometimes" -- we wouldn't be having most of this conversation.  Instead, it's been these ridiculous attempts to defend everything she has ever said at all costs.  Well, that's going to be a losing battle.  Because it seems clear that there is going to be a neverending stream of examples people can use where Waters has said things that a reasonable person might reasonably find offputting, and which might incline that person to not be so terribly fond of Alice.  And some of you guys are going to have to work harder and harder and harder to defend against these things so that Alice can once again seem like someone who does no wrong.  And that's really the crux of matter.  Alice (along with you, her defenders) has held herself up as some kind of eco-cultural-foodie messiah who can do no wrong.  This rubs people the wrong way sometimes.  Basta.

←

And this is what I said:

The same is true with AW. She is a chef, not a politician. She is trying to make the world a better place in ways that are relevant to her profession. She’s not perfect. She will have flaws. She will say stupid shit.  But her flaws should not be the focus. Unfortunately, they are; they are because there are people who want them to be.

Once I said this, Fat Guy decided to break out the semantics arguement. How it is we are "defending everything she has every said at all costs" when you and Fat Guy won't even let a very commonly used (and, for the most part, very accurate) word slide makes me believe it is not I who is the one who is defending my view point ridiculously.

[slkinsey]

The only part I have taken issue with all along is when people have attacked the ideas by attacking Waters making the attacks against he ideas ad hominem attacks.

Well, I think that, as Steven pointed out, when you hold yourself up as the living embodiment of these ideas, when you say things in a way that suggests you believe everyone should be more like you, when you have effectively sought to be the spokesperson (and take plenty of the credit) for a certain movement. . . it becomes difficult and unrealistic to expect that people will separate the ideas from the person.

Edited May 21, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Fat Guy]

Once I said this, Fat Guy decided to break out the semantics arguement. 

←

You were making an excuse, by saying she's a chef not a politician, therefore we should forgive her for saying "stupid shit" (your words). But she's not a chef. She's a restaurateur and activist. She has chosen to be a public figure and to lobby for her ideas. So the she's-just-a-chef excuse doesn't work.

[slkinsey]

And this is what I said:

The same is true with AW. She is a chef, not a politician. She is trying to make the world a better place in ways that are relevant to her profession. She’s not perfect. She will have flaws. She will say stupid shit.  But her flaws should not be the focus. Unfortunately, they are; they are because there are people who want them to be.

And you said it using precisely the kind of wording ("[her flaws are the focus] because there are people who want them to be") that casts those who find some aspects of Waters, her message and delivery annoying, condescending, etc. as "evil, bad people with a prejudiced agenda against Saint Alice" rather than as reasonable people who may reasonably take exception with aspects of her message and aspects of her delivery.

The topic of this thread is, "why is it that people seem to be not liking Alice Waters so much these days?" People have offered reasons for why this may be so. Others have attempted to deny the validity of these reasons or explain them away. But it seems impossible to have a discussion on a thread about "the backlash against Alice Waters" without focusing on her flaws.

Edited May 21, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Dignan]

A couple of illustrations further to Sam's earlier post:

I teach a class at the International Culinary Center (the parent entity of the French Culinary Institute) in what's called the Advanced Studies Program. I teach about writing, not about cooking. Of the 12 students in the seminar, something like 7 of them are involved in the FCI culinary program, some as students and others as chef-instructors. On the first day of class, a couple of people reflexively referred to me as "Chef!" which was not only bizarre but also a little uncomfortable. But it's very hard to break this habit: culinary-school people call instructors "Chef!" even when they're highly experienced chef-instructors themselves and even when the instructor is just some guy who writes about food. There was absolutely no possibility of getting them to call me "Steven." It just doesn't work in that subculture. So one of the students started calling me "Teach!" and now that's what they all call me. That's what they can manage. (P.S. My father lectured at West Point a couple of times and they always called him "Sir!" even though the highest rank he ever achieved was president of our block association.)

Another illustration: I have now spent, if you add it all up, something like six months in restaurant kitchens. Mostly I just stand around and watch. Occasionally, if they let me, I help butcher some rabbits or perform some other menial task. And once in a while, a real chef comes to me and asks me to taste a dish and comment. It's even possible that I'll be standing near the pass when the expediter has stepped away, and an order ticket will pop up on the printer, so I'll grab it and read it off, to which the line cooks always respond, "Oui, Chef!" not because they think I'm a chef but just because that's how it goes in kitchens. I assure you none of this makes anybody think I'm a chef.

←

Sounds to me as if, out of all those people, you were the only person who has a problem with the word "chef." Yet you couldn't resist pointing out where everyone else was wrong, while you were right.

In our society, the term chef can be applied in a decidedly colloquial fashion to mean anyone "who manages a kitchen." As far as I'm concerned, if the guy who runs the kitchen at Denny's wants to call himself a chef, what do I care? Do I get some benefit at of belittling the guy? Does it even make me right? The term’s usage is vague enough to include even him.

Your argument makes me think of Bug Bunny. When he say’s “Whats up doc?” and the ludicrousy of Elmer Fudd correcting the rabbit with a terse “I’m not a doctor.”

←

I kinda think the problem is that people who have a deep respect for food and the craft of the chef, including Steven and Alice, feel some compunction when being addressed with a title that they don't feel they deserve. In fact, they take pains to correct the error.

[Chris Amirault]

I think that's right. I visit the culinary program at Johnson & Wales now and then, and my gray hair, glasses, and general decrepitude always get me "Chef" comments throughout the building. I don't deserve the title and it makes me feel like a fraud, no matter how good my charcuterie turned out that weekend.

[skipper10]

I've got to go, but, if this thread is still here later on, I will return.  According to the   McNamee book:

Page 43

"...As construction progressed the reality of the unforgiving hours of drudgery that are sine qua non of chef began to sink in.  When he learned what his salary would be, his mind was made up.  Cheffing at Chez Panisse was not going to be Paul Aratow's career."

I'm guessing that would be why he ran the BOH for such a short period of time before Tower was hired as the chef.

You also fail to mention that the very next sentence reads: "Alice, superb cook though she had become, could not imagine herself behind the stoves."

←

I used the quote you refer to in my post # 363. I retyped the entire paragraph. This thread is fascinating, but I have tons of things to complete before I can read all posts. sorrrry.

[slkinsey]

[wrt "chef"] I kinda think the problem is that people who have a deep respect for food and the craft of the chef, including Steven and Alice, feel some compunction when being addressed with a title that they don't feel they deserve.  In fact, they take pains to correct the error.

Eh...? Not sure if this applies to Waters so much. I mean, if she didn't want herself listed on the CP web site as "Executive Chef" then I think she has the ability to get that taken down.

On the other hand, it seems difficult to characterize her relationship with that restaurant using any other readily understandable word. Muse? Guiding Light? Philosophical Leader? My understanding is that she doesn't manage that kitchen today, doesn't plan the menu and doesn't create the dishes. But certainly her influence on the cooking there goes deeper than Danny Meyer's influence on the dishes at his restaurants. So it's actually quite difficult to say what, exactly, her "title" should be with respect to her rols past and present at Chez Panisse. What does seem clear is that it's not "chef " in the same sense that we mean "chef" when we talk about Alain Ducasse, Tom Colicchio, and yes, even Tony Bourdain and even still the guy who runs the kitchen at the local Denny's.

Edited May 21, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Fat Guy]

I think restaurateur is still quite accurate. Danny Meyer tends to delegate culinary oversight these days, but when Union Square Cafe opened he was deeply involved in the culinary aspects. It was Michael Romano's food, but Danny Meyer was there tasting everything, guiding the philosophy, etc. At least that's what I get from his book. But also Danny Meyer is only one example of the possibilities of the title. Someone like Sirio Maccione has at times been deeply involved with the kitchen at Le Cirque. I mean, didn't he invent pasta primavera? Or at least that's the story I keep hearing. I think Ducasse at this point prefers to describe himself as a restaurateur, even though he has impeccable chef credentials, because he prefers to give credit to the in-restaurant chefs he oversees from afar.

[Dignan]

[wrt "chef"] I kinda think the problem is that people who have a deep respect for food and the craft of the chef, including Steven and Alice, feel some compunction when being addressed with a title that they don't feel they deserve.  In fact, they take pains to correct the error.

Eh...? Not sure if this applies to Waters so much. I mean, if she didn't want herself listed on the CP web site as "Executive Chef" then I think she has the ability to get that taken down.

←

Agreed. I was focusing on her statements that were included where she denied the title, but you're right, the other hand takes it back up.

[docsconz]

The only part I have taken issue with all along is when people have attacked the ideas by attacking Waters making the attacks against he ideas ad hominem attacks.

Well, I think that, as Steven pointed out, when you hold yourself up as the living embodiment of these ideas, when you say things in a way that suggests you believe everyone should be more like you, when you have effectively sought to be the spokesperson (and take plenty of the credit) for a certain movement. . . it becomes difficult and unrealistic to expect that people will separate the ideas from the person.

←

That is the essence of an ad hominem argument.

[slkinsey]

The only part I have taken issue with all along is when people have attacked the ideas by attacking Waters making the attacks against he ideas ad hominem attacks.

Well, I think that, as Steven pointed out, when you hold yourself up as the living embodiment of these ideas, when you say things in a way that suggests you believe everyone should be more like you, when you have effectively sought to be the spokesperson (and take plenty of the credit) for a certain movement. . . it becomes difficult and unrealistic to expect that people will separate the ideas from the person.

That is the essence of an ad hominem argument.

Argumentum ad hominem is when you "reply to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

I don't gather that people have been saying, for example, "organic school lunches for everyone is a crock because Alice Waters is a demagogue." At least in this thread, what I see when people have criticized some of her ideas is that they have criticized the substance of her arguments. If anything, some of this has gone in reverse, with some defending any criticism of any idea issuing from Waters' mouth, seemingly at least partially motivated by an unwavering admiration of Waters.

To the extent that some people (myself included) have pointed out that aspects of Waters' persona and delivery may have the effect of rendering people less receptive to her ideas... that's simply pointing out the truth of human nature, not making an argument for or against any of her ideas one way of the other. Her persona and delivery also make people less receptive to her ideas even when they are ideas with which I agree.

Edited May 21, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Florida]

To the extent that some people (myself included) have pointed out that aspects of Waters' persona and delivery may have the effect of rendering people less receptive to her ideas... that's simply pointing out the truth of human nature, not making an argument for or against any of her ideas one way of the other.  Her persona and delivery also make people less receptive to her ideas even when they are ideas with which I agree.

←

Well, if this is all you're trying to say, then I can agree with that. Sure, her attitude makes some people less receptive to her ideas.

[slkinsey]

Add a recession, et voila: backlash!

[docsconz]

The only part I have taken issue with all along is when people have attacked the ideas by attacking Waters making the attacks against he ideas ad hominem attacks.

Well, I think that, as Steven pointed out, when you hold yourself up as the living embodiment of these ideas, when you say things in a way that suggests you believe everyone should be more like you, when you have effectively sought to be the spokesperson (and take plenty of the credit) for a certain movement. . . it becomes difficult and unrealistic to expect that people will separate the ideas from the person.

That is the essence of an ad hominem argument.

Argumentum ad hominem is when you "reply to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

I don't gather that people have been saying, for example, "organic school lunches for everyone is a crock because Alice Waters is a demagogue." At least in this thread, what I see when people have criticized some of her ideas is that they have criticized the substance of her arguments. If anything, some of this has gone in reverse, with some defending any criticism of any idea issuing from Waters' mouth, seemingly at least partially motivated by an unwavering admiration of Waters.

To the extent that some people (myself included) have pointed out that aspects of Waters' persona and delivery may have the effect of rendering people less receptive to her ideas... that's simply pointing out the truth of human nature, not making an argument for or against any of her ideas one way of the other. Her persona and delivery also make people less receptive to her ideas even when they are ideas with which I agree.

←

Sam, I wasn't saying or implying that you were amking ad hominem attacks. I don't believe that you were. I get your point and I agree with it regarding Waters though I don't share the same attitude towards her. The topic is too long to go back over with a fine tooth comb, but there were ad hominem attacks that were putting down the substance of her ideas because they were her ideas.

By the way, how does yur dictionary definition differ with what I said was the "essence of an ad hominem argument"? By not being able to separate the person from the ideas and one attacks the person, one attacks the ideas. You have done a good job of separating the two. Some others have attacked the person and the ideas on their own merits, while others have primarily attacked the ideas by way of the person. In fairness, the ideas are not necessarily good simply because they are her ideas either.