There are two general classes of replies to objections, which apply to nearly every kind of proposition. The first is that of deftly catching the objection on your mental fencing-foil, allowing it to glance off, and at the same time getting a thrust on your opponent. President Patterson of the National Cash Register Company is credited with special cleverness in this kind of reply, and his salesmen are said to be instructed to listen carefully to the prospect's objection and then to turn it back on him by a remark based on the principle of: "Why, that's the very reason why you should," etc. In other words the objection should be twisted into an argument in favor of the proposition. In the hands of a master this form of reply is very effective, and often brings results by reason of its daring and unexpectedness. But it is not every one who has the skill to use it to advantage. The second class of reply is based upon what is called indirect Resistance, which, by the way, is often the strongest form of _resistance_, and accomplishes its intended effect while avoiding the opposition and antagonism of Direct Resistance. Some writers on the subject have called this "Non-Resistance," obviously a misnomer for it is a form of resistance although subtly disguised. It is analogous to the tree that bends in order to avoid breaking under the blasts of the storm; of the flexible steel which bends to the pressure, instead of breaking as would iron; but both of which spring back into place immediately. It is generally very poor policy to directly oppose the prospect upon minor points--the main point is what you are after. And the main point is the order--the rest is immaterial and unimportant. Let us contrast Direct-Resistance and Indirect-Resistance, and see the points of each. In Direct Resistance the minor objections of the prospect are met with the answer: "You are wrong there, Mr. X;" or, "You are entirely mistaken;" or, "You take the wrong view;" or, as we heard in one instance: "Your objection is ridiculous." The Direct Resistance is necessary in a few contingencies, or upon rare occasions, but it should be sparingly and cautiously used. It is a desperate remedy indicated only for desperate diseases. The Indirect Resistance expresses itself in answers of: "That is possibly _true_ in some cases, _but_," etc.; or, "There is _much_ truth in what you say, Mr. X, _but_," etc.; or, "As a general proposition that is probably correct, _but_," etc.; or, "I quite agree with you, Mr. X. that (etc.) but in this particular case I think an exception should be made," etc. The value of this form of resistance lies in the fact that it costs you nothing to allow the prospect to retain his own ideas and entertain his own prejudices, provided they do not interfere with the logic of your general argument, nor affect your main point, the order.