Reply #224: No, it is not "exactly [your] point"

[bread_and_roses]

It is, in fact, exactly the opposite of your one point, which has already been refuted several hundred times in this thread. At the most generous interpretation I can put on it (which I am trying to do because you claim to have been an advocate for ADA), you believe there is only one legitimate strategy to propel change, you believe one must always acknowledge that the opposing party has legitimate views and is an honest broker, you believe that a mediation model suits all disputes, and - here's where my good-will breaks down - that Matt Damon should not only have met with Arne Duncan but have come prepared with model legislation as if Duncan were a Frosh City Councilor who'd never given two thoughts to the issue before - which is ludicrous.

Better wo/men than I have repeatedly demolished your assumptions in this thread alone, not to mention the libraries of information easily available to you. If you genuinely believe any of that, there's no point to this. And unlike you evidently do, I do not always believe that my opponents are either honest or sincere, nor that they merely need my - or someone's - "expertise" to see the light, nor that just a little more negotiation from the perspective that "you give a little/I give a little" will bring progress. Ever hear of a strike?

So keep singing your one note - I'm moving on.