On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 02:35:11PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:41:12PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > But may I point you to the fact that Joel just
> > tried to start such a discussion (albeit only in a side note to a side
> > note)? You didn't show that this was irrational (except by assertion
> > that it is not possible to rationally discuss the meaning of the word
> > "problems").
>
> It is not necessary to show that a non-obvious assertion with no
> rationale is irrational. The only appropriate response to a
> disconnected assertion, such as the one he introduced, is to assert
> that it is wrong and indicate the correct one. Anything less is to
> encourage the propagation of an incorrect meme; anything more is a
> waste of time. Anybody who is interested in discussing the issue will
> then proceed to discuss it; anybody who is not will demonstrate this
> fact in a fairly obvious manner (around here, usually denoted by
> pointless rants and ad-hominem arguments), several examples of which
> can be seen in this thread.
Because, as we all know, trimming the rationale and the examples given of
why there is an issue renders the assertion both non-obvious and without
rationale.
I stand in awe of your techniques. You're quite sure you won't be running
for a US Congressional seat sometime soon?
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature