Feb 4, 2023·edited Feb 7, 2023Liked by Skye Pillsbury
+ Googled Prince Lobel out of bursting curiosity. And it turns out you were too kind :D. First thing that jumped out is the stark nonexistence of women of color across all tiers of attorneys besides 1 Black woman and 1 Latina, both at the lowest tier. Asian women, South Asians, Pacific Islanders, whole ethnic groups need not apply. I know this is Boston we're talking about, but is this typical? I've sent to my paralegal friend in Mass. to ask around too.
BTW of the 3 Business Litigation division women you mention, only 1 actually is listed as a partner, 2 are only associates. If reviews are indication, most women will be run out before they start getting too skilled and confident or running their traps about proper pay. Have you combed their Glassdoor yet? Didn't bother signing up to see in full, but mentions extreme turnover, they seem truly deeply hostile to women who don't know their place, and the most recent one's title is simply: "Toxic." Solid choice, PRX!
Bonus points: solid judgment for both a journalism outfit and a supposedly journalists-supporting law firm to bet on journalists failing to expose their diversity and inclusion prattle for the deceptive grandstanding it is. What stupefying foolishness.
Enlightening and crucially important work -congratulations, Skye. Spread the word, all.
Me too! She's swamped with trial prep, but has heard of them and will have more to say when she frees up to read in full. Initial reaction: "those guys deserve every bit of this and more". Cliffhanger, lol.
Wow, Skye! Outstanding. The Prince Lobel one, holy $^&*. This is such revealing context. That PRX report perplexed me back when it landed in my feed. There were some funny guesses of who they think they're fooling after the tweets spread. Remember thinking, what and who is this even for? They're really trying to blame the young woman for not cooperating with their low attempts to publicly discredit her? They find excess stress and barriers "BIPOC" specifically suffer **at all levels** and then trivialize all as "microaggressions"? Farcical. (The pop buzzwords also gave it a very "how do you do, fellow kids" energy, ha.)
A big reason you see rules like "interns must receive college credit" has to do with employment laws. The quick and dirty is that you can get people to work for free as long as they get "paid" in credit. It's similar to "consideration" within contracts.
I appreciate the value of internships and entry level work under established people, but at the same time, I think we're in a world where it matters less and less, because it's so much easier to jump in with limited resources and do something on your own. Yeah, the mentorship isn't there in the same way, but if you're looking to jumpstart a career, you no longer have to wait for somebody to established to validate you.
Who gets internships is an important question. I think the SAG-AFTRA response is in good faith. Their first interest is in guarding against exploitation. As for giving priority to grads of accredited programs, I expect this is, in part, a way of dealing with having way more applications than intern positions. Understandable, but imperfect. Perhaps NPR should earmark at least a few positions for people with non-conforming backgrounds.
I agree that the SAG-AFTRA response is in good faith, and in fact, I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here on the side of the employers either. It's tricky, but I'd love to see a way for those who don't qualify for internships under the current system to still be considered. Not sure what that would be but hoping I get a chance to find out. Appreciate this comment!
It's hard to know, as he didn't reply — and yes, I would assume the firm is okay with it since his email is right there, plain as day! I'll try to include screenshot of my email but not sure if this will work —
/Users/skyepillsbury/Desktop/Screen Shot 2023-03-15 at 1.20.47 PM.png
Doesn't look like that worked, lol — so here's the text of my email for anyone who'd like to see it. I wonder if I should spend any time following up.
Hi Jeffrey —
My name is Skye and I’m a reporter for a newsletter about the audio industry. I noticed that in 1999 you wrote a paper called “Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory’s Attack on the Promises of Liberalism” and wondered if you still stand behind what you wrote in this paper? I realize it’s been more than two decades since it was published and thought I’d reach out to see if your perspective had changed.
For example, you wrote:
"Race-crits … do not … acknowledge alternative explanations for disadvantage, such as low wages, job insecurity, limited inheritances, absence of health benefits, poor labor markets or access to quality education. Inconvenient facts do not long detain them because they value ammunition more than nuance or complexity. …Instead of civil discourse, race-crits substitute subjective, personal and even fictitious 'narratives' as evidence of the permanence and prevalence of racism."
Mar 17, 2023·edited Mar 17, 2023Liked by Skye Pillsbury
Your actual emails always dispel any notions of attacking or accusing. I'm a big fan of your transparency with that.
I hope you do follow up. His article is downloaded 10s of 1,000s of times and his name is being used, today, by Lindsay, by Rufo, but also by Breitbart, Ben Shapiro, the Heritage Foundation, by officials in government pushing CRT bans. I trust he agrees they'd not publicize his work if it's not effective. Will you ask how he feels, as a First Amendment defender, about CRT bans, and his work being cited by anti-CRT lawmakers? He derided CRT scholars, who are now his faculty colleagues, as "unprincipled"...
That part you cited was a jaw-dropper. Profound insistence on "alternative explanations" that he won't spell out, while 20 years on, personally maintaining the racial and gender hierarchy he and his fanboys deny as merely a figment of imaginary, anti-American, inferior thinking. Rather rich, too, that the "job insecurity," "low wages," etc, are entirely disconnected from the "union avoidance" service he personally advertises to reporters' bosses.
A point was made in another forum that his client drew national attention to the despicable degree of systemic racism in Boston, especially in education and law, as a Pulitzer-finalist in 2018, (https://apps.bostonglobe.com/spotlight/boston-racism-image-reality/). Will Mr. Pyle tell us he sees no link between his individual choices and the institutionalized white caste dominance so well preserved within his own city, his own industry, his own workplace? How many journalists of color has he supported, and how many lawyers who aren't white or male has he ever allowed to hold equal rank to him in his group? Many of us would love to be enlightened by the outcomes of his unbiased, surely colorblind determinations.
Prince Lobel's association as an institution becomes perplexing when we learn that the "Prince," Walter B. Prince, is a successful black lawyer who promotes his firm as a model for taking on lack of racial inclusion as a serious problem (huh...). If he wants to associate his image with the right side of this issue, how is he alright with having his family name on such a mocking derision of legal experts of color who elucidate that same problem?
Apologies, I've said a lot already. But I have to say this, because my ex-spouse was a scholar of Dr. King and this has stuck in my craw most offensively. Mr. Pyle, naturally, invoked that magical Dr. King quote the insincere and the cynical love to abuse. He twists everyone's words to ludicrously claim that CRT theorists reject Dr. King's dream as white supremacist racism. He falsely claims his own colorblind ideology as the one endorsed by Dr. King, who, he wants us to believe, would want "radicals" to end their "complaining" and "preoccupation with power," get an attitude adjustment if they want "help" from white folks, and settle for "principles, "promises," and "at least some hope of incremental success" instead.
In case it's unclear, I detest the radically selfish, ignorantly haughty ideology he helped popularize. If there is one passage on which I wish Mr. Pyle would share his view, it's this from "Letter From a Birmingham Jail":
"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season.""
Tell us, Mr. Pyle, do you recognize the object of Dr. King's scorn? Perhaps it's not "radicals" who dare loudly resist racial subordination that are the problem, but don't let inconvenient facts long detain you.
Do you know what, I was just thinking I should return with an apology and removal of my indignant spillover. And then I think about this, and I'm completely overcome, all over again: https://twitter.com/ProfMMurray/status/1541477230953603073. Imagine. Imagine the torment.
I wish I could send you the full discussion about women's experiences with this which so enraged me. There are some bullet points I saved and I can pull some comments your reporting drew, if you'd like.
I can tell you many more appreciate you and admire your diligence. You're a light exposing the wreckage of self-justifying, good old boy artificiality and weakness. You shine against it so ably. A credible word against it from someone like Jeffrey could do so much good, if he or any of his cohort wanted that, for others, too.
Why do you feel it's right to throw Jeffrey Pyle under the bus for something he wrote in 1999? He represents journalists on important transparency cases. Not many firms do that. He's on your side.
Thanks for writing! Can you share any of the names of the journalists he's represented, as none of them are featured (by name, anyway) in the list of Prince Lobel's media practice clients (it only lists media orgs, not people). I'd love to know more about these journalists + their cases.
In answer to your question, the reason I mentioned Pyle's paper on CRT is for transparency's sake. I believe people and orgs have a right to know — in fact, absolutely *should* know — the views and potential biases of their legal representation. Clearly, Pyle has a strong view of CRT and this might feel relevant to journalists, particularly JOC.
Btw despite writing his piece in 1999, it's still easily and freely accessible on a variety of different law-related websites (I downloaded it and read the whole thing), and as I pointed out in my piece, continues to be cited by those in opposition to CRT. I reached out to Mr. Pyle prior to publishing my piece to see whether his views on CRT had shifted and he never responded.
The cases are freely found on his firm page, they issue press releases (bottom) https://princelobel.com/professional/jeffrey-j-pyle/#overview . He's been recognized with prestigious awards for protecting free speech and helping minorities through his work, like suing police for information, as you would see there. Why does it matter who exactly his journalist clients are though?
Did you disclose that you would imply he has bias when you asked for comment? Maybe he finds the suggestion unfair and absurd and doesn't want to dignify it.
I reached out to Mr. Pyle in good faith, acknowledging that it had been two decades since he wrote the piece and wondered if his thinking had shifted. I always want to give someone a chance to respond in good faith — but I can't expect that unless I approach them in the spirit of good faith myself.
Perhaps we should agree to disagree. I think including evidence of bias against CRT on the part of a lawyer who is called upon to represent JOC is relevant (particularly now when CRT is under attack). If you disagree, that's okay by me. I appreciate hearing all POVs. Be well.
How could you be so heartless, Skye? Publicly critiquing a man whose ill-informed public publication continues to publicly poison the well of public discourse. Just because he and his firm diminish POC who speak up about racism as he himself is awarded and paid to "help minorities," doesn't mean picking up on the gross hypocrisy isn't way harsh, y'know?
Somebody has to be the scholarly liberal legitimizer of the culture war. So let him succeed in framing law professors who expose systemic inequality as the *real* threat to the republic, in peace, without question or comment, please and thanks.
This exchange led me to read again Jeffrey's article. I think Skye should at least link to the freely available pdf, so we can read for ourselves (There's actually a lot of broken links before finding a pdf source): https://core.ac.uk/download/71464452.pdf
I'm willing to agree that it was wrong for him to paint race-crits as a threat to American society and maybe he should correct it. And I'll give you that he shows a pretty shallow perspective on problems faced by others, maybe a bit of a sheltered idealist. For the record, I'm not a fan of the "marxist" accusations either; It's a cheap tool of the hard right. But where I have to say I agree is that a victimhood mentality will not get anyone anywhere, and I would these days extend his warning to how far many women are trying to push things now (see post-MeToo "dragging" and retribution toward men). The answer is not to take over and dominate institutions; The answer is balance. Instead of retributive attack, forgiveness toward the past and effective dialogue to move forward.
"In the process, the race-crits' racialist, blame-game rhetoric does much to alienate potentially helpful whites." Basically, I am just saying that I think Jeffrey writes in good faith there when he warns that too much of this stuff will push away your allies. Wise practice to keep in mind. Or not - Suit yourselves.
+ Googled Prince Lobel out of bursting curiosity. And it turns out you were too kind :D. First thing that jumped out is the stark nonexistence of women of color across all tiers of attorneys besides 1 Black woman and 1 Latina, both at the lowest tier. Asian women, South Asians, Pacific Islanders, whole ethnic groups need not apply. I know this is Boston we're talking about, but is this typical? I've sent to my paralegal friend in Mass. to ask around too.
BTW of the 3 Business Litigation division women you mention, only 1 actually is listed as a partner, 2 are only associates. If reviews are indication, most women will be run out before they start getting too skilled and confident or running their traps about proper pay. Have you combed their Glassdoor yet? Didn't bother signing up to see in full, but mentions extreme turnover, they seem truly deeply hostile to women who don't know their place, and the most recent one's title is simply: "Toxic." Solid choice, PRX!
Bonus points: solid judgment for both a journalism outfit and a supposedly journalists-supporting law firm to bet on journalists failing to expose their diversity and inclusion prattle for the deceptive grandstanding it is. What stupefying foolishness.
Enlightening and crucially important work -congratulations, Skye. Spread the word, all.
Thank you for this! I would love to hear what your paralegal friend has to say!
Me too! She's swamped with trial prep, but has heard of them and will have more to say when she frees up to read in full. Initial reaction: "those guys deserve every bit of this and more". Cliffhanger, lol.
And thank you for catching that there are even fewer partners on the business litigation team than I thought!
Wow, Skye! Outstanding. The Prince Lobel one, holy $^&*. This is such revealing context. That PRX report perplexed me back when it landed in my feed. There were some funny guesses of who they think they're fooling after the tweets spread. Remember thinking, what and who is this even for? They're really trying to blame the young woman for not cooperating with their low attempts to publicly discredit her? They find excess stress and barriers "BIPOC" specifically suffer **at all levels** and then trivialize all as "microaggressions"? Farcical. (The pop buzzwords also gave it a very "how do you do, fellow kids" energy, ha.)
A big reason you see rules like "interns must receive college credit" has to do with employment laws. The quick and dirty is that you can get people to work for free as long as they get "paid" in credit. It's similar to "consideration" within contracts.
I appreciate the value of internships and entry level work under established people, but at the same time, I think we're in a world where it matters less and less, because it's so much easier to jump in with limited resources and do something on your own. Yeah, the mentorship isn't there in the same way, but if you're looking to jumpstart a career, you no longer have to wait for somebody to established to validate you.
Current examples in podcasting:
The Clock Starts Now - https://redcircle.com/shows/the-clock-starts-now
Shameless Acqusition Target - https://www.shameless.biz/
Who gets internships is an important question. I think the SAG-AFTRA response is in good faith. Their first interest is in guarding against exploitation. As for giving priority to grads of accredited programs, I expect this is, in part, a way of dealing with having way more applications than intern positions. Understandable, but imperfect. Perhaps NPR should earmark at least a few positions for people with non-conforming backgrounds.
I agree that the SAG-AFTRA response is in good faith, and in fact, I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here on the side of the employers either. It's tricky, but I'd love to see a way for those who don't qualify for internships under the current system to still be considered. Not sure what that would be but hoping I get a chance to find out. Appreciate this comment!
Well, some of the best journalists I've worked with did not go to J school. If I'm hiring it's not the most important thing.
In light of what you've deftly shown are PRX and Prince Lobel's true values, I'm intrigued by the contemporary attribution featuring Mr. Pyle's princelobel.com email on his older work (https://web.archive.org/web/20210309190532/https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2124&context=bclr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dcritical%20race%20theory%20randall%20kennedy%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCgQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Flawdigitalcommons.bc.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2124%26context%3Dbclr%26ei%3D6M1cT7eoB4jhiAKQqbnXCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNHAmA_oZsiBOwhxDrE1cbvNYRw8Sg%26sig2%3D594KFFfIaVHaU4RonqMT_Q) I'm inclined to believe he's been well aware of where his influence is most felt, and wouldn't stonewall you if he's in fact had more knowledge or empathy lead to a change of heart or personal values. I'm wondering if it suggests something for the firm to allow its name on something like this. But I'm not sure if I'm assuming too much based on my own company's policies. Do you happen to know, generally?
It's hard to know, as he didn't reply — and yes, I would assume the firm is okay with it since his email is right there, plain as day! I'll try to include screenshot of my email but not sure if this will work —
/Users/skyepillsbury/Desktop/Screen Shot 2023-03-15 at 1.20.47 PM.png
Doesn't look like that worked, lol — so here's the text of my email for anyone who'd like to see it. I wonder if I should spend any time following up.
Hi Jeffrey —
My name is Skye and I’m a reporter for a newsletter about the audio industry. I noticed that in 1999 you wrote a paper called “Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory’s Attack on the Promises of Liberalism” and wondered if you still stand behind what you wrote in this paper? I realize it’s been more than two decades since it was published and thought I’d reach out to see if your perspective had changed.
For example, you wrote:
"Race-crits … do not … acknowledge alternative explanations for disadvantage, such as low wages, job insecurity, limited inheritances, absence of health benefits, poor labor markets or access to quality education. Inconvenient facts do not long detain them because they value ammunition more than nuance or complexity. …Instead of civil discourse, race-crits substitute subjective, personal and even fictitious 'narratives' as evidence of the permanence and prevalence of racism."
Do you stand behind these words today?
Thanks for the clarification.
Skye
Your actual emails always dispel any notions of attacking or accusing. I'm a big fan of your transparency with that.
I hope you do follow up. His article is downloaded 10s of 1,000s of times and his name is being used, today, by Lindsay, by Rufo, but also by Breitbart, Ben Shapiro, the Heritage Foundation, by officials in government pushing CRT bans. I trust he agrees they'd not publicize his work if it's not effective. Will you ask how he feels, as a First Amendment defender, about CRT bans, and his work being cited by anti-CRT lawmakers? He derided CRT scholars, who are now his faculty colleagues, as "unprincipled"...
That part you cited was a jaw-dropper. Profound insistence on "alternative explanations" that he won't spell out, while 20 years on, personally maintaining the racial and gender hierarchy he and his fanboys deny as merely a figment of imaginary, anti-American, inferior thinking. Rather rich, too, that the "job insecurity," "low wages," etc, are entirely disconnected from the "union avoidance" service he personally advertises to reporters' bosses.
A point was made in another forum that his client drew national attention to the despicable degree of systemic racism in Boston, especially in education and law, as a Pulitzer-finalist in 2018, (https://apps.bostonglobe.com/spotlight/boston-racism-image-reality/). Will Mr. Pyle tell us he sees no link between his individual choices and the institutionalized white caste dominance so well preserved within his own city, his own industry, his own workplace? How many journalists of color has he supported, and how many lawyers who aren't white or male has he ever allowed to hold equal rank to him in his group? Many of us would love to be enlightened by the outcomes of his unbiased, surely colorblind determinations.
Prince Lobel's association as an institution becomes perplexing when we learn that the "Prince," Walter B. Prince, is a successful black lawyer who promotes his firm as a model for taking on lack of racial inclusion as a serious problem (huh...). If he wants to associate his image with the right side of this issue, how is he alright with having his family name on such a mocking derision of legal experts of color who elucidate that same problem?
Apologies, I've said a lot already. But I have to say this, because my ex-spouse was a scholar of Dr. King and this has stuck in my craw most offensively. Mr. Pyle, naturally, invoked that magical Dr. King quote the insincere and the cynical love to abuse. He twists everyone's words to ludicrously claim that CRT theorists reject Dr. King's dream as white supremacist racism. He falsely claims his own colorblind ideology as the one endorsed by Dr. King, who, he wants us to believe, would want "radicals" to end their "complaining" and "preoccupation with power," get an attitude adjustment if they want "help" from white folks, and settle for "principles, "promises," and "at least some hope of incremental success" instead.
In case it's unclear, I detest the radically selfish, ignorantly haughty ideology he helped popularize. If there is one passage on which I wish Mr. Pyle would share his view, it's this from "Letter From a Birmingham Jail":
"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season.""
Tell us, Mr. Pyle, do you recognize the object of Dr. King's scorn? Perhaps it's not "radicals" who dare loudly resist racial subordination that are the problem, but don't let inconvenient facts long detain you.
I enjoy your thoughtful commentary and you've inspired me to try Mr. Pyle again. We'll see what transpires.
Do you know what, I was just thinking I should return with an apology and removal of my indignant spillover. And then I think about this, and I'm completely overcome, all over again: https://twitter.com/ProfMMurray/status/1541477230953603073. Imagine. Imagine the torment.
I wish I could send you the full discussion about women's experiences with this which so enraged me. There are some bullet points I saved and I can pull some comments your reporting drew, if you'd like.
I can tell you many more appreciate you and admire your diligence. You're a light exposing the wreckage of self-justifying, good old boy artificiality and weakness. You shine against it so ably. A credible word against it from someone like Jeffrey could do so much good, if he or any of his cohort wanted that, for others, too.
Why do you feel it's right to throw Jeffrey Pyle under the bus for something he wrote in 1999? He represents journalists on important transparency cases. Not many firms do that. He's on your side.
Thanks for writing! Can you share any of the names of the journalists he's represented, as none of them are featured (by name, anyway) in the list of Prince Lobel's media practice clients (it only lists media orgs, not people). I'd love to know more about these journalists + their cases.
In answer to your question, the reason I mentioned Pyle's paper on CRT is for transparency's sake. I believe people and orgs have a right to know — in fact, absolutely *should* know — the views and potential biases of their legal representation. Clearly, Pyle has a strong view of CRT and this might feel relevant to journalists, particularly JOC.
Btw despite writing his piece in 1999, it's still easily and freely accessible on a variety of different law-related websites (I downloaded it and read the whole thing), and as I pointed out in my piece, continues to be cited by those in opposition to CRT. I reached out to Mr. Pyle prior to publishing my piece to see whether his views on CRT had shifted and he never responded.
The cases are freely found on his firm page, they issue press releases (bottom) https://princelobel.com/professional/jeffrey-j-pyle/#overview . He's been recognized with prestigious awards for protecting free speech and helping minorities through his work, like suing police for information, as you would see there. Why does it matter who exactly his journalist clients are though?
Did you disclose that you would imply he has bias when you asked for comment? Maybe he finds the suggestion unfair and absurd and doesn't want to dignify it.
Appreciate your responses, by the way.
I reached out to Mr. Pyle in good faith, acknowledging that it had been two decades since he wrote the piece and wondered if his thinking had shifted. I always want to give someone a chance to respond in good faith — but I can't expect that unless I approach them in the spirit of good faith myself.
Perhaps we should agree to disagree. I think including evidence of bias against CRT on the part of a lawyer who is called upon to represent JOC is relevant (particularly now when CRT is under attack). If you disagree, that's okay by me. I appreciate hearing all POVs. Be well.
How could you be so heartless, Skye? Publicly critiquing a man whose ill-informed public publication continues to publicly poison the well of public discourse. Just because he and his firm diminish POC who speak up about racism as he himself is awarded and paid to "help minorities," doesn't mean picking up on the gross hypocrisy isn't way harsh, y'know?
Somebody has to be the scholarly liberal legitimizer of the culture war. So let him succeed in framing law professors who expose systemic inequality as the *real* threat to the republic, in peace, without question or comment, please and thanks.
This exchange led me to read again Jeffrey's article. I think Skye should at least link to the freely available pdf, so we can read for ourselves (There's actually a lot of broken links before finding a pdf source): https://core.ac.uk/download/71464452.pdf
I'm willing to agree that it was wrong for him to paint race-crits as a threat to American society and maybe he should correct it. And I'll give you that he shows a pretty shallow perspective on problems faced by others, maybe a bit of a sheltered idealist. For the record, I'm not a fan of the "marxist" accusations either; It's a cheap tool of the hard right. But where I have to say I agree is that a victimhood mentality will not get anyone anywhere, and I would these days extend his warning to how far many women are trying to push things now (see post-MeToo "dragging" and retribution toward men). The answer is not to take over and dominate institutions; The answer is balance. Instead of retributive attack, forgiveness toward the past and effective dialogue to move forward.
"In the process, the race-crits' racialist, blame-game rhetoric does much to alienate potentially helpful whites." Basically, I am just saying that I think Jeffrey writes in good faith there when he warns that too much of this stuff will push away your allies. Wise practice to keep in mind. Or not - Suit yourselves.