Methods of argumentation require one to embrace a tripartite approach: Regard for who the audience is; consideration of what the intended goal is; selection of the effective methodology of presentation.
Diatribes will often consider the first two points, while disregarding the third — for, the intended audience is the targeted person or group who must bear the vitriolic attack; the goal is to let loose a torrent of one’s beliefs and (in all likelihood) upset the recipient; but it is rarely an effective approach for any intended purpose other than to gratify one’s emotional turmoils.
Persuasion, on the other hand, must by necessity include the third element — for the very sign of success not only regards the intended audience and considers the goal of changing another’s mind; most importantly, it must do so in a subtle, quiet sort of way — by allowing for the recipient of the presentation to think that he or she is changing a perspective based upon one’s own volition, when in fact the presentation itself is the vehicle of the alteration.
It is this distinction between a diatribe and persuasion which one must keep in mind when preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS. The bull-in-a-china-shop approach in presenting one’s Federal Disability Retirement application before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will rarely win them over; on the other hand, a carefully-crafted presentation based upon a streamlined narrative; upon medical evidence which is concise; and with legal arguments which are precise — leads to a methodology of persuasive impact.
Diatribes serve their self-centered purposes; persuasive argumentation allows for the unseen thread to pull the levers of effective results. In the end, the short-term gratification of a diatribe will leave one hungry and dissatisfied, whereas the fruits of persuasion will always fulfill the needs of the audience, and the desire of the presenter.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Theory and Practice: Tips and Strategies for a Successful Application | Tagged: an effective approach to federal disability retirement law, approaching your opm disability claim in a persuasive manner, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, bitter personal diatribes won't get your opm disability claim approved, consistency of argumentation principles key to success, crafting effective persuasive arguments in your opm disability retirement application, disability retirement at the USPS, engaging in a opm disability case through persuasion, federal disability law and legal argumentation, federal disability law blog, FERS disability retirement, filing a very persuasive federal disability application, finding persuasive arguments for your opm disability application approval, law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america, lawyer representing postal workers, legal arguments from non lawyers, legal arguments in the federal disability application, legal persuasion in the initial federal disability application, methods of argumentation used to get a federal disability claim approved, nationwide representation of federal employees, owcp disability retirement, personal or medical injury while working with the federal government, persuading an opm representative to rule in your favor, persuasive argument in federal disability retirement claims, persuasive argumentation in the federal disability retirement application, postal service disability retirement, postal workers injury attorney, pursuing a coherent and persuasive federal disability retirement application, resources for injured federal workers, the applicant's methodology, the art of persuasion in fers disability retirement law, validity of argumentation used on behalf of the opm disability applicants, writing a diatribe against a hostile environment in the federal workplace, writing a persuasive legal analysis of your case | Leave a comment »